Opinion
Case No. 17-cv-1402-DSD-KMM
07-17-2017
SHANNON LEE SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Shannon Lee Simmons did not pay the filing fee for this matter, but instead applied for in forma pauperis ("IFP") status. In an order dated May 22, 2017, this Court noted that Ms. Simmons's complaint failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See ECF No. 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Rather than recommend dismissal of this action, the Court afforded Ms. Simmons until July 3, 2017 in which to submit an amended complaint, failing which it would be recommended that this matter be dismissed without prejudice.
That deadline has now passed, and Ms. Simmons has not submitted an amended complaint. In fact, Ms. Simmons 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, both for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and 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, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. This action be SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.Dated: July 17, 2017
2. Plaintiff Shannon Lee Simmons's application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] be DENIED.
s/ Katherine Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States Magistrate Judge
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. LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in LR 72.2(c).