Jones v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Director of

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICKY LYNN JONES, JR, Case No. 23-cv-11572

Plaintiff, Hon. F. Kay Behm v. United States District Judge

STEVEN DETTELBACH, Hon. Kimberly G. Altman Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, U.S. Magistrate Judge Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,

Defendant. ___________________________ /

OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S OCTOBER 31, 2024, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 30)

Currently before the court is Magistrate Judge Altman’s October 31, 2024, Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 30). Magistrate Judge Altman recommends dismissal without prejudice. The Court is fully advised in the premises and has reviewed the record and the pleadings. Neither party has filed objections, which were due within 14 days of service of the recommended disposition (here, the Report and Recommendation was mailed to Jones’ listed address on October 31, 2024). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Local Rule 72.1(d); see Docket entries following ECF No. 30. “[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report[] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the

matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 2012 WL 3639070 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). The court nevertheless agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommended

disposition. The court notes that Plaintiff Ricky Lynn Jones, Jr. (Jones) proceeded pro se in this matter and that Jones has not taken any action on this case since he submitted incomplete service documents to the

Court on February 15, 2024. While Jones’ spouse, Antonio Fluker, has apparently attempted to file motions and responses on Jones’ behalf, he is not, and has never been, a party to this case, nor is he an attorney.

See ECF Nos. 19, 20, 24, 28, 23, 27, 29. As the Magistrate Judge pointed out in striking Fluker’s filings (ECF No. 29), “[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases

personally or by counsel . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Under this requirement, “[a] person may not appear pro se on another person’s behalf in the other’s course of action.” Zanecki v. Health Alliance Plan

of Detroit, 576 F. App’x 594, 595 (6th Cir. 2014). The Magistrate Judge also noted that “in Fluker’s motion to obtain Defendant’s responses filed on September 10, 2024, Fluker stated that Jones had not received ‘any of the defendant’s responses or additional documents.’” ECF No. 30,

PageID.162 (quoting ECF No. 19, PageID.67). However, “if Jones’ address is incorrect on the docket or if he moved, it is his responsibility to update the Court with his new or correct address under the Court’s

requirements. He has not done so.” ECF No. 30, PageID.162 (citing ECF No. 4, Notice Regarding Parties' Responsibility to Notify Court of Address Changes).

Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 30) and DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 41.2. This is a final order that closes the case. SO ORDERED.

Date: November 21, 2024 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge