Hilson v. Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: December 13, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-12447
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

TINA M. HILSON, Civil Action No. 24-12447 Plaintiff, Robert J. White v. United States District Judge

DETROIT RESCUE MISSION David R. Grand MINISTRIES, et al., United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants. ______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS DEFENDANT BEVERLY STEWART (ECF No. 10) I. REPORT A. Background On September 17, 2024, pro se plaintiff Tina Hilson (“Hilson”) brought this employment discrimination action, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. (ECF No. 1). Named as defendants in this action were Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries and five of its employees – Barbara Willis, Dr. Chad Audi, Belinda Flowers, Danielle Copeland, and Beverly Stewart. (Id.). On December 2, 2024, this case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (ECF No. 21). On October 11, 2024, Hilson filed a document that reads: “Plaintiff Ms. Tina Hilson request motion to have defendant Mrs. Beverly Stewart (Payroll Benefit Specialist) to be remove[d] from cause of action.”1 (ECF No. 10, PageID.253). The

Court interprets this statement as a request that Hilson be permitted to voluntarily dismiss her claims against defendant Stewart. B. Analysis

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) governs voluntary dismissals in federal court. Rule 41(a)(1)(A) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action, without prejudice, without a court order: (1) by filing an appropriate notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (2) by

stipulation of the parties. Here, the first condition is satisfied because, at the time Hilson filed her “request” that defendant Stewart be “remove[d]” as a defendant in this case, Stewart had filed neither an answer nor motion for summary judgment.

See Cross v. Hartsfield, No. 22-11705, 2022 WL 17834074, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 12, 2022) (“Because there is no answer or summary judgment motion filed, Plaintiff did not need leave of the Court to voluntarily dismiss her case.”). As such, the Court construes Hilson’s filing (ECF No. 10) as a notice of voluntary dismissal, and her

claims against defendant Stewart should be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) (“Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the

1 In quoting from Hilson’s filing, the Court will do so verbatim to ensure statements are not taken out of context. dismissal is without prejudice.”). II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Hilson’s request to voluntarily dismiss her claims against defendant Stewart (ECF No. 10) be GRANTED and that Hilson’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE as to Stewart.

Dated: December 13, 2024 s/David R. Grand Ann Arbor, Michigan DAVID R. GRAND United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations set forth above. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(1). Failure to timely file objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, (1985); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). Only specific

objections to this Report and Recommendation will be preserved for the Court’s appellate review; raising some objections but not others will not preserve all objections a party may have. See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829

F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596-97 (6th Cir. 2006). Copies of any objections must be served upon the Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be concise, and should address specifically, and in the same order

raised, each issue presented in the objections.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on December 13, 2024.

s/Eddrey O. Butts EDDREY O. BUTTS Case Manager