Scarlett Lopez v. Dakota Ramseur

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: February 9, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00008
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

SCARLETT LOPEZ,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:26-cv-8 v. HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY DAKOTA RAMSEUR,

Defendant. ____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on January 9, 2026. On January 22, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the action be dismissed upon initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Report and Recommendation mailed to the Plaintiff was returned to the Court marked “no such number” and “unable to forward” (ECF No. 8). A review of the court records for this case reflects that another document mailed to the Plaintiff, the Notice of Receipt of Case, was also returned to the Court marked “no such number” and “unable to forward” (ECF No. 7). Even though the Plaintiff has not received a copy of the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has been properly served under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As required by statute, the magistrate judge filed the Report and Recommendation with the Court and mailed a copy to the Plaintiff at her last known address. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“The magistrate judge shall file his proposed findings and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy shall forthwith be mailed to all parties.”). Upon placing the Report and Recommendation in the mail to the Plaintiff’s last known address, service was complete. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). Plaintiff has a continuing obligation to apprise the Court of his current address. See W.D. Mich. L.Civ.R. 41.1 (“Failure of a plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of his current address shall be grounds for dismissal for want of prosecution.”); see also White v. City of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App’x 210, 211 (6th Cir. 2022) (affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit that occurred in

part because the plaintiff “failed to keep the district court apprised of his current address”). After being served with a Report and Recommendation issued by a Magistrate Judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). Failure to file an objection results in a waiver of the issue and the issue cannot be appealed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (upholding the Sixth Circuit’s practice). No objections have been filed to date. Although the Plaintiff's failure to file objections is a sufficient reason to adopt the Report and Recommendation, this Court has reviewed the merits of the report and finds the magistrate

judge’s reasoning and conclusions sound. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007). A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Order.

Dated: February 9, 2026 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge