From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Badillo v. Birkholz

United States District Court, District of Minnesota
Sep 13, 2021
21-cv-1631 (PAM/DTS) (D. Minn. Sep. 13, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-1631 (PAM/DTS)

09-13-2021

Arnaldo Badillo, Petitioner, v. B. Birkholz, et al., Respondents.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DAVID T. SCHULTZ U.S. Magistrate Judge

In an order dated August 16, 2021, this Court directed petitioner Arnaldo Badillo to either pay the $5.00 filing fee for this matter or apply for in forma pauperis (IFP) status, consistent with the instructions Badillo had earlier received from the Clerk of Court. See Docket No. 5. Badillo was given 14 days to pay the filing fee or apply for IFP status, failing which it would be recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

That deadline has now passed, and Badillo has not complied with the Court's August 16 order. In fact, Badillo has not communicated with the Court about this case at all since commencing this action. Accordingly, this Court now recommends, in accordance with its prior order, that this action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 Fed. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“A district court has discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any court order.”).

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, this Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

NOTICE

Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).


Summaries of

Badillo v. Birkholz

United States District Court, District of Minnesota
Sep 13, 2021
21-cv-1631 (PAM/DTS) (D. Minn. Sep. 13, 2021)
Case details for

Badillo v. Birkholz

Case Details

Full title:Arnaldo Badillo, Petitioner, v. B. Birkholz, et al., Respondents.

Court:United States District Court, District of Minnesota

Date published: Sep 13, 2021

Citations

21-cv-1631 (PAM/DTS) (D. Minn. Sep. 13, 2021)