Hartwick v. Eischens
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-02877
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Hartwick v. Eischens, Judge Tostrud dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute after accepting an unobjected-to recommendation.
William Burt Hartwick's action was dismissed without prejudice; the opinion does not describe any ruling on the underlying claims.
What happened
In Hartwick v. Eischens, William Burt Hartwick brought an action against B. Eischens, identified as the warden of FPC Duluth, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a report and recommendation on August 26, 2024. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error, accepted the report and recommendation, and dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Hartwick v. Eischens · No. 0:24-cv-02877
- Eric Tostrud
- Sept. 30, 2024
Background
William Burt Hartwick sued B. Eischens, identified in the caption as the warden of FPC Duluth, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. The opinion does not explain the claims or the events underlying the action.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on August 26, 2024. No party objected to it. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake.
Ruling
Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error and ordered that the Report and Recommendation be accepted. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court also ordered that judgment be entered.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.