
    CORLEY v. KRAWCZAK
    Dismissal and Nonsuit — No Progress — Notice of Dismissal — Reinstatement — Discretion of toe Court.
    Notice published in a legal newspaper 10 days before the date of dismissal is sufficient and proper notice to plaintiff of pending dismissal of his action after it is plaeed on the no-progress docket for lack of progress; denial of plaintiff’s motion for reinstatement of the cause of action is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion (GCR 1963, 501.3; 502.4; Wayne circuit court rule 17.2).
    Appeal from Wayne, Victor Baum, J.
    Submitted Division 1 January 7, 1969, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 4,709.)
    Decided February 26, 1969.
    Complaint by Henry Corley against Leonard R. Krawczak for negligence in operation of a motor vehicle. Action dismissed for lack of progress. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frances R. Avadenlca, for plaintiff on appeal.
    
      Sullivan, Sullivan, Hull <& Ranger, for defendant.
    BEFORE: Lesinski, C. J., J. H. G-illis and T. M. Burns, JJ.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    Am Jur 2d, Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Nonsuit § 90,
   Pee Curiam.

The Wayne county circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s cause of action for lack of progress. Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal and from the circuit court order denying plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the cause.

In his appeal, plaintiff sets forth one issue which can best be discussed in the form of three contentions. First, .plaintiff contends he did not receive proper notice of imminent dismissal of the cauáé, as notice was never published listing the action oh the no-progress calendar. However, a review of the record discloses that notice was properly published in the Detroit Legal News on the last working day of the September term, pursuant to OCR 1963, 501.3 and 502.4, and Wayne circuit court rules 10.5 and 17.3.

Second, plaintiff contends the trial court acted contrary to the Michigan and Wayne circuit court rules in ordering dismissal. However, analysis of the facts indicates that plaintiff’s cause of action was placed on the no-progress calendar pursuant to OCR 1963, 502.4, after a year of inaction. Notice was published September 30,1966. The cause would have been dismissed October 10, 1966 but for the filing on that date of a forged “ready for pretrial certificate.” No further progress in the case was noted. On August 25, 1967, the trial court invalidated the pretrial certificate after determining it to be a forgery. The court then ordered dismissal of the cause for no progress in accordance with the court’s no-progress calendar published for the month of October, 1966. In so dismissing this cause, we find the circuit court fully complied with the court rules, and especially Wayne circuit court rule 17.2.

Plaintiff further asserts the circuit court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for reinstatement of his cause of action. Michigan case law is clear that where a case is dismissed for want of progress after sufficient notice to plaintiff, issuance of an order of reinstatement is within the discretion of the trial court. Denial of reinstatement will not be disturbed by this Court in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Reynolds v. Dobbertin (1962), 366 Mich 162; Sesor v. Proctor & Gamble Soap Co. (1934), 267 Mich 128; Robinson v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge (1928), 242 Mich 548; Prine v. Hatfield (1966), 5 Mich App 57.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.  