Case Information

*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CORY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff Case No. 2:17-CV-10591 District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith v. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti CBC INNOVIS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (DE 1)

I. RECOMMENDATION : The Court should dismiss this action for what appears to be Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and for Plaintiff’s failure to show cause.

II. REPORT:

A. Background

Plaintiff, Cory Williams, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed this action against CBC Innovis, Inc. on February 22, 2017, alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA). Plaintiff’s statement of claim provides:

I applied for a loan through Bank of America home loans in August 2016. Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by providing Bank of America inaccurate information in my credit report, which *2 caused my loan to be denied[.] After being notified of this incorrect information[,] defendant failed to correct the information[.] (DE 1 at 4.) He seeks an order requiring Defendant to correct the inaccurate information and granting Plaintiff $125,000 in punitive damages.

On March 1, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. (DEs 2, 3.) On March 3, 2017, the Clerk’s Office issued a summons for CBC Innovis, Inc. and provided it to Plaintiff for service. (DEs 5, 6.)

B. The Court’s Order to Show Cause

Judge Goldsmith has referred this case to me for all pretrial proceedings. (DE 7.) On September 21, 2017, the incorporated Defendant having yet to appear, Plaintiff not having filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint upon Defendant, and Plaintiff having been required to serve Defendant no later than, approximately, May 23, 2017 (s ee Fed. Rules Civ. P. 4(c), 4(h), 4(l), and 4(m)), I entered an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In particular, my order provided:

This case cannot proceed until (1) Defendant has been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and (2) there has been either a Rule 4(l) proof of service by Plaintiff or an appearance by Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff Cory Williams is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2017 why the Court should not dismiss this action for what appears to be his failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.

(DE 9 at 2-3) (emphases in original). To date, Plaintiff has not filed a written response to the Court’s show cause order.

C. Discussion

The docket indicates that copies of the Court’s orders (DEs 3, 4, 7 and 9) were served upon Plaintiff at his address of record (12323 W. Outer Dr. Detroit, MI 48223). Moreover, the Clerk’s Office served Plaintiff with a “Notice Regarding Parties' Responsibility to Notify Court of Address Change[.]” (DE 8.) There is no indication on the docket that any of these attempts at service were returned as undeliverable.

Plaintiff having been ordered to show cause, having failed to show cause, and, further, having apparently failed to comply with Fed. R Civ. P. 4, the Court should dismiss his complaint without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(m).

III. PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service, as provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. 505 (6th Cir. 1991). Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this *4 Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231 1370, 1273 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” and “Objection No. 2,” etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.

Dated: November 28, 2017 s/Anthony P. Patti

Anthony P. Patti

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on November 28, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.

s/Michael Williams Case Manager for the Honorable Anthony P. Patti