Sean Michael Ryan v. State of Michigan, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: 4:24-cv-11105
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

SEAN MICHAEL RYAN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 4:24-cv-11105

District Judge Shalina D. Kumar v. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S APRIL 18, 2025 MOTION (ECF No. 31) AS SEEKING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a), GRANTING THIS MOTION (ECF No. 31), and DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST ALL BUT THREE DEFENDANTS

Sean Michael Ryan initiated this lawsuit in 2024 against sixteen (16) Defendants – thirteen (13) identified by name and three (3) unidentified. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2-6.) Judge Kumar has referred this case to me for pretrial matters. (ECF No. 10.) Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 18, 2025 motion to dismiss all Defendants except the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), and the Bureau of Health Services (ECF No. 31), which the Court construes as seeking voluntary dismissal of certain Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). A Magistrate Judge has the authority to issue an order on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) motion. See Ramirez v. Borders, No. CV 18-5276 VAP (SS), 2018 WL 6118603, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2018) (“The Magistrate Judge has authority to grant a voluntary dismissal of claims....”) (referencing Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th Cir. 2015) (magistrate judge has authority to grant petitioner’s voluntary dismissal of claims)). Upon consideration, Plaintiffs motion (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against the ten (10) specifically listed in his motion (i.e., Washington, Cargor, Hill, Landfair, Rodgers, Bale, Hallet, Herro, Jamisen, and “unknown others”) are DISMISSED (see id., PageID.315). Additionally, Plaintiff's claims against three (3) other Defendants (i.e., JCF, an unknown Wellpath medical provider, and an unknown MDOC state-wide ADA coordinator) are DISMISSED, because Plaintiff's motion makes clear that he intends to leave only three (3) Defendants (the State of Michigan, the MDOC, and the Bureau of Health Services). IT IS SO ORDERED.!

Zo PR Dated: February 19, 2026 Anthony P. Patti UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

‘ The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).