McGough v. Shackelford

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-12820
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Daniel McGough,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-cv-12820

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Victoria I. Shackelford, et al., Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff Daniel McGough initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the following Defendants: 23rd District Court Judge Victoria I. Shackelford; Taylor Police Department Detective Mark Johnston; and Taylor Police Department Officers Katlyn Bartaway, Edward Moore, Larry Frederick, and Lamar Frederick. On November 5, 2024, the Court issued an order striking the complaint filed by Plaintiff because “[t]he complaint [wa]s not signed by Plaintiff, who is self-represented.” (ECF No. 5, PageID.11 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a)).) The Court’s order stated that “[b]y November 18, 2024, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that contains his handwritten signature.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by that date. As a result, the Court issued a show cause order on April 7,

2025. (ECF No. 10.) The Court’s order contained the following language: Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss the action for failure to comply with the Court’s [November 5, 2024] order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff’s response to this show cause order is due by April 18, 2025. Failure to file a response by April 18, 2025 will result in sanctions, including the dismissal of the action. (Id. at PageID.24 (emphasis in original).) The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s April 7, 2025 show cause order has elapsed, and the Court has not received any communication from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not responded to the show

cause order. Nor has he submitted an amended complaint or asked for more time to file a response or an amended complaint. The Court previously warned Plaintiff about the possibility of dismissal if he failed

to respond within the specified time frame. (See id.) In light of Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the Court’s orders—as well as the current posture of the case—the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the case without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Mich. LR 41.2; Bay Corrugated Container, Inc. v. Gould, Inc., 609 F. App’x 832, 835 (6th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2025 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

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 May 6, 2025.

s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager