From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Eischen

United States District Court, District of Minnesota
Jul 5, 2023
23-CV-1674 (KMM/JFD) (D. Minn. Jul. 5, 2023)

Opinion

23-CV-1674 (KMM/JFD)

07-05-2023

DARRELL D. SMITH, Petitioner, v. B. EISCHEN, Respondent.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOHN F. DOCHERTY, United States Magistrate Judge

On June 5, 2023, the Clerk of this Court sent Petitioner Darrell D. Smith a letter indicating that (1) the Court had not received either this action's filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action; (2) Mr. Smith had 15 days (i.e., until June 20, 2023) to submit the fee or an application; and (3) if Mr. Smith failed to do so, his case “could be summarily dismissed without prejudice.” (Dkt. No. 2 at 1.)

That deadline has now passed, and Mr. Smith has not submitted a filing fee or an IFP application. (Indeed, he has not communicated with the Court at all since filing this action.) Accordingly, this Court now recommends dismissing this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See, e.g., 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 on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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

Smith v. Eischen

United States District Court, District of Minnesota
Jul 5, 2023
23-CV-1674 (KMM/JFD) (D. Minn. Jul. 5, 2023)
Case details for

Smith v. Eischen

Case Details

Full title:DARRELL D. SMITH, Petitioner, v. B. EISCHEN, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, District of Minnesota

Date published: Jul 5, 2023

Citations

23-CV-1674 (KMM/JFD) (D. Minn. Jul. 5, 2023)