Thomas #811751 v. King et al
OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DONDRELL TYRELL THOMAS,
Case No. 2:15-cv-79
Honorable Robert Holmes Bell
S. KING, et al.,
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner. On November 20, 2015, the
Court determined that service of the complaint is warranted, and entered an order (docket #16)
requiring Plaintiff to provide additional copies of the complaint for the United States Marshal to
execute service, in accordance with W.D. Mich. LCivR 10.4 and Administrative Order 03-029.1 The
Court allowed 14 days for Plaintiff to comply. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to provide the
requisite copies, or to submit an affidavit explaining his inability to do so,2 the Court could dismiss
his case for want of prosecution.
More than 14 days have elapsed and Plaintiff has not submitted the requisite copies
or offered any reason as to why he is unable to do so. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with
When service is to be made by the United States Marshal, the Court’s local rules require litigants to provide
sufficient copies of their documents for service when the documents are filed. W.D. Mich. LCivR 10.4. Under
Administrative Order 03-029, Plaintiff was excused from providing additional copies of his complaint until the Court
determined that service was warranted.
As the Court explained in its order, Plaintiff is responsible for the copies, and the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) provides loans for this purpose.
the rules of the Court and the Court’s November 20, 2015 order, the Court will issue a judgment
dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of prosecution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 1, 2016
/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?