From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mays v. Bloomington Police Dep't

United States District Court, District of Minnesota
Jul 19, 2021
Civ. 21-0665 (SRN/BRT) (D. Minn. Jul. 19, 2021)

Opinion

Civ. 21-0665 (SRN/BRT)

07-19-2021

Otis Mays, Plaintiff, v. Bloomington Police Department, et al., Defendants.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BECKY R. THORSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In an order dated March 16, 2021, this Court ordered plaintiff Otis Mays to submit financial information from which his initial partial filing fee could be calculated. (Doc. No. 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)).) Mays was at first given 20 days to submit the required financial information, but that deadline has been extended twice as Mays reported difficulty procuring the necessary information from prison officials. The most recent of those extensions provided Mays until July 1, 2021, to submit the financial documentation needed from him under § 1915(b). (Doc. No. 10.) Mays has also been reminded that failure to provide the necessary financial information could result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

That most recent deadline of July 1, 2021 has now passed, and Mays still has not provided the necessary financial information. The record reflects no sufficient reason for this inaction. Mays had complained that prison officials at the facility where he previously resided were delinquent in providing the necessary financial information. But over two months ago Mays arrived at a different facility, (Doc. No. 11-1 at 1), and yet still has not provided the necessary documentation. And though Mays was on quarantine status upon arrival to his new facility, that status expired over six weeks ago on June 1, 2021. (Doc. No. 11-1 at 2.)

No further extension is warranted. Accordingly, this Court now recommends, in accordance with its prior order, that this matter be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 Fed.Appx. 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, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.


Summaries of

Mays v. Bloomington Police Dep't

United States District Court, District of Minnesota
Jul 19, 2021
Civ. 21-0665 (SRN/BRT) (D. Minn. Jul. 19, 2021)
Case details for

Mays v. Bloomington Police Dep't

Case Details

Full title:Otis Mays, Plaintiff, v. Bloomington Police Department, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, District of Minnesota

Date published: Jul 19, 2021

Citations

Civ. 21-0665 (SRN/BRT) (D. Minn. Jul. 19, 2021)