Case Information
*1 Case 1:18-cv-01160-JTN-ESC ECF No. 25, PageID.121 Filed 06/10/19 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES FLETCHER #582330,
Plaintiff, Hon. Janet T. Neff v. Case No. 1:18-CV-1160 ROBBIE BRADFORD, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bradford’s Motion for Partial Dismissal on Grounds of Qualified Immunity. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff initiated this action against five individuals alleging various state and federal law claims. On November 14, 2018, the Honorable Janet T. Neff dismissed the bulk of Plaintiff’s complaint. Specifically, Judge Neff dismissed all Plaintiff’s claims save his claims against Defendant Bradford for unlawful retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On February 14, 2019, Defendant Bradford filed the present motion seeking the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on qualified immunity grounds. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the present motion despite having been granted additional time to do so. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s motion be granted .
While Plaintiff is representing himself, pro se litigants are “still required to follow the rules of civil procedure and easily-understood Court deadlines.” Ciavone v. McKee , 2009 WL 2959737 at *6 (W.D. Mich., Sept. 10, 2009). Failure by a plaintiff to respond to a motion to dismiss constitutes a forfeiture of the claims to which the motion is addressed. See Notredan, L.L.C. v. Old
Case 1:18-cv-01160-JTN-ESC ECF No. 25, PageID.122 Filed 06/10/19 Page 2 of 2
Republic Exchange Facilitator Co. , 531 Fed. Appx. 567, 569 (6th Cir., July 29, 2013) (failure to respond to an argument that a claim is subject to dismissal “amounts to a forfeiture of [such] claim”). Likewise, opposition to a motion to dismiss is waived, and dismissal appropriate, where the plaintiff fails to respond thereto. See Humphrey v. United States Attorney General’s Office , 279 Fed. Appx. 328, 331 (6th Cir., May 15, 2008) (“if a plaintiff fails to respond or otherwise oppose a defendant’s motion, then the district court may deem the plaintiff to have waived opposition to the motion”); Allen v. NCL America LLC , 741 Fed. Appx. 292, 295-96 (6th Cir., July 10, 2018) (by failing to respond to motion to dismiss, plaintiff waived opposition thereto); Moody v. CitiMortgage, Inc. , 32 F.Supp.3d 869, 875 (W.D. Mich. 2014) (“[a] plaintiff must oppose a defendant’s motion to dismiss or otherwise respond or he waives opposition to the motion”); Thorn v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc. , 81 F.Supp.3d 619, 631 (W.D. Mich. 2015) (same).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that Defendant Bradford’s Motion for Partial Dismissal on Grounds of Qualified Immunity, (ECF No. 17), be granted .
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court = s order. See Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters , 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 10, 2019 /s/ Ellen S. Carmody ELLEN S. CARMODY
U.S. Magistrate Judge
-2-