McCart v. Nagy

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

CRAIG PATRICK McCART,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-12633

v. Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge NOAH NAGY, et al. Honorable Anthony P. Patti Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge ___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 28), DISMISSING THE CASE, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 22)

On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff Craig Patrick McCart filed a complaint against nine officers, which was referred to a magistrate judge for pro se prisoner mediation, ECF No. 8, and later, for full pretrial matters, ECF No. 14. On October 17, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, ECF No. 22, to which McCart was ordered to respond in one month, ECF No. 23. But about two weeks later, the order was returned as undeliverable to McCart. ECF No. 25. On January 5, 2026, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti ordered McCart to show cause why his case should not be dismissed under Civil Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute for not updating his address and participating in the proceedings, especially given that on numerous previous occasions he had updated his address when it had changed. ECF No. 26. McCart was ordered to respond by January 30, 2026. Id. But that order was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 27. Accordingly, on

February 16, 2026, Judge Patti issued a report, recommending that this Court dismiss the complaint under Civil Rule 41(b) and deem Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment as moot. ECF No. 28. This order was also returned as

undeliverable. ECF No. 29. Judge Patti provided 14 days to object. Id. at PageID.309–10. But the Parties did not do so. They have therefore forfeited their right to appeal Judge Patti’s findings. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). And having reviewed the report and recommendation, this Court will adopt the recommendation in full because there is no clear error. See Roby v. Bloom Roofing Sys, 343 F.R.D. 487, 490 (E.D. Mich.

2023) (noting that a clearly erroneous finding is one that leaves this Court with a firm and definite conviction that the magistrate judge made a mistake). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 28, is ADOPTED.

Further, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 22, is DENIED AS MOOT. Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is

DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. This is a final order and closes the above-captioned case.

/s/Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ United States District Judge Dated: March 19, 2026