Marable v. Davidson County Sheriff's Office et al
Filing
18
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 14 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, because Marable has failed to file any objections to the R&R, and has otherwise failed to comply with orders of this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magis trate Judge's recommendation to dismiss Marable's Complaint without prejudice is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Marable's Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman on 8/4/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LIZERA MARABLE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02731
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
DAVIDSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDED
DISPOSITION (ECF #11) AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT (ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
In this prisoner civil-rights action, pro se Plaintiff Lizera Marable alleges that
Defendants provided inadequate medical care while Marable was in the custody of
the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office. (See Compl., ECF #1.)
On November 7, 2016, this Court entered a written order in which it required
Marable to complete a “service packet”1 within twenty-one days for each Defendant
so that the Court could issue valid process in this action. (ECF #7 at Pg. ID 32.) In
that order, the Court warned Marable that “the failure to return the completed service
1
A “service packet” is comprised of a summons and a USM-285 form. (ECF #7 at
Pg. ID 32.) Copies of blank service packets were mailed to Marable at Marable’s
custodial address. (See id.)
1
packets within the time required could jeopardize prosecution of this action.” (Id.)
In addition, Marable was “further warned that failure to advise the Court promptly
of any change of his address may result in the dismissal of this lawsuit for failure to
prosecute.” (Id.)
Marable did not return the service packets to the Court as ordered. Instead,
Marable “filed a notice with the Court that contained a non-institutional residential
address.” (ECF #11 at Pg. ID 36.) The Court thereafter re-mailed Marable copies of
the service packets and again warned that the failure to complete and return the
forms, or the failure to provide the Court with a valid address, could result in the
dismissal of this action:
Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to again send two
service packets to Plaintiff at the new address and to
change Plaintiff’s address on the docket. Plaintiff MUST
complete the service packets and return them to the
Clerk’s Office by February 28, 2017. Upon return of the
completed service packets, PROCESS SHALL ISSUE.
However, Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to return
the completed service packets within the time required
will result in a recommendation that his action be
dismissed. Plaintiff is also advised that she must keep the
Court and Defendants informed of a current and good
mailing address. Additional instances of returned mail due
to an insufficient address will result in a recommendation
that this action be dismissed.
(Id. at Pg. ID 36-37.)
The Court’s written order and service packet were mailed to Marable’s new
address, but they were returned to the Court as undeliverable. (See ECF #13.)
2
Thereafter, on March 30, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation (the “R&R”) in which she recommended that the Court dismiss
Marable’s Complaint without prejudice due to (1) Marable’s failure to follow the
Court’s previous orders and (2) Marable’s failure to prosecute this action. (See ECF
#14.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge instructed Marable that
if Marable wanted to seek review of her recommendation, Marable needed to file
specific written objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at Pg. ID
42.)
Marable has not filed any objections to the R&R. Nor has Marable filed a
notice of a new address with the Court. Marable’s failure to file objections to an
R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human
Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231,
829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to an R&R
releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Accordingly, because Marable has failed to file any objections to the R&R,
and has otherwise failed to comply with orders of this Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss Marable’s
Complaint without prejudice is ADOPTED.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Marable’s Complaint (ECF #1) is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SITTING BY SPECIAL DESIGNATION
Dated: August 4, 2017
4
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?