Ross v. Kent County Sheriff's Department

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00163
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRELL ROSS,

Plaintiff, Hon. Jane M. Beckering

v. Case No. 1:24-cv-163

KENT COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Michael Dean’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 31). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s motion be granted and this action be terminated. BACKGROUND Plaintiff initiated this action against: (1) Martin Albert; (2) Alex Fox; (3) Michael Levand; (4) Michael Dean; (5) City of Grand Rapids; (6) Grand Rapids Police Department; and (7) Kent County Sheriff’s Department. (ECF No. 1). In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, during an encounter with law enforcement, his rights were violated. Defendants Albert, Fox, Levand, City of Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids Police Department, and Kent County Sheriff’s Department previously moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 17, 24). After Plaintiff failed to respond to these motions, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 36), recommending that the motions be granted because Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 38). Defendant Michael Dean, the sole remaining Defendant, has also filed a

Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 31). On April 21, 2025, the undersigned entered an Order directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s motion no later than June 5, 2025. (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff was expressly warned that, “[i]n the event Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the undersigned will consider any opposition to Defendant’s motion waived and will, therefore, recommend that Defendant’s motion be granted.” (Id.). On June 5, 2025, the undersigned granted Plaintiff’s motion to extend the

response deadline to June 26, 2025. (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff was again warned that the failure to file a timely response “will result in the undersigned considering any opposition to Defendant’s motion waived and will, therefore, recommend that Defendant’s motion be granted.” (Id.). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order or otherwise respond to Defendant’s motions. ANALYSIS

While Plaintiff is representing himself, pro se litigants are “still required to follow the rules of civil procedure and easily-understood Court deadlines.” Ciavone v. McKee, 2009 WL 2959737 at *6 (W.D. Mich., Sept. 10, 2009). Failure by a plaintiff to respond to a motion to dismiss constitutes a forfeiture of the claims to which the motion is addressed. See Notredan, L.L.C. v. Old Republic Exchange Facilitator Co.,

-2- 531 F. App’x 567, 569 (6th Cir., July 29, 2013) (failure to respond to an argument that a claim is subject to dismissal “amounts to a forfeiture of [such] claim”). Likewise, opposition to a motion to dismiss is waived, and dismissal appropriate, where the

plaintiff fails to respond thereto. See Humphrey v. United States Attorney General’s Office, 279 F. App’x 328, 331 (6th Cir., May 15, 2008) (“if a plaintiff fails to respond or otherwise oppose a defendant’s motion, then the district court may deem the plaintiff to have waived opposition to the motion”); Allen v. NCL America LLC, 741 F. App’x 292, 295-96 (6th Cir., July 10, 2018) (by failing to respond to motion to dismiss, plaintiff waived opposition thereto); Moody v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 32 F. Supp. 3d 869, 875 (W.D. Mich. 2014) (“[a] plaintiff must oppose a defendant’s motion to

dismiss or otherwise respond or he waives opposition to the motion”); Thorn v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc., 81 F. Supp. 3d 619, 631 (W.D. Mich. 2015) (same). Based on this record, the undersigned finds that, by failing to respond to the present motion, Plaintiff has waived any opposition thereto. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s motion be granted. CONCLUSION

For the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) be granted and this action be terminated. For the same reasons the undersigned makes this recommendation, the undersigned finds that an appeal of such would be frivolous. Coppedge v. United

-3- States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, the undersigned further recommends that an appeal of this matter by Plaintiff would not be in good faith. OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the

Clerk of Court within fourteen days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Respectfully submitted,

Date: August 19, 2025 /s/ Phillip J. Green PHILLIP J. GREEN United States Magistrate Judge

-4-