Opinion
Case No. 15-CV-3045 (JNE/FLN)
10-19-2015
MONTY JONES, Plaintiff, v. HOGLUND, CHWIALKOWSKI and MROZIK, PLLC, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Monty Jones commenced this action by filing a complaint for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, among other claims. Jones did not pay the required filing fee for this case, but instead filed an application seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). See ECF No. 2. In an order dated August 14, 2015, this Court required Jones to file an amended complaint that satisfied the pleading requirements discussed in the order. See ECF No. 3. Jones was given until September 15, 2015 to file the amended complaint, 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 Jones has not filed an amended complaint. In fact, Jones 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, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Dated: October 19, 2015
s/Franklin L . Noel
Franklin L. Noel
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 for in LR 72.2(c). Under Advisement Date: This Report and Recommendation will be considered under advisement 14 days from the date of its filing. If timely objections are filed, this Report and Recommendation will be considered under advisement from the earlier of: (1) 14 days after the objections are filed; or (2) from the date a timely response is filed.