Opinion
20-cv-2114 (KMM)[1]
08-19-2021
Christopher C., Plaintiff, v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Katherine Menendez, United States Magistrate Judge.
In an Order dated July 13, 2021, the Court declined to enter an order dismissing this case in a manner consistent with a “Stipulated Dismissal” filed by the Plaintiff, Christopher C., because it had not been signed by both parties and included a provision to which the Defendant specifically objected. (ECF 29.) Consequently, the Court instructed Mr. C. that if he intended to proceed with the litigation, he needed to file and serve a motion for summary judgment as required by District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.2(c)(1). (Id. at 2.) The Court reminded Mr. C. that his summary-judgment motion was due on Monday, August 9, 2021, and cautioned that if he failed to file a motion and supporting memorandum before the due date, his case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Id.)
The August 9, 2021 deadline has come and gone, and Mr. C. has not filed a motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum. Nor has the Court received any other communication from Mr. C. about this case. Because Mr. C. has failed to comply with the Local Rule governing the progression of this case and was specifically cautioned that such a failure may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, the Court now recommends 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 and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED 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).