Hurtado-Obregon v. United States
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-03044
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Hurtado-Obregon v. United States, Judge Tunheim’s court recommended dismissal without prejudice after Faber failed to pay or seek permission to proceed without the filing fee.
Faber Hurtado-Obregon’s action against the United States was recommended for dismissal without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fee, request permission to proceed without prepaying it, or communicate with the court.
What happened
In Hurtado-Obregon v. United States, the court had directed Faber Hurtado-Obregon to pay the filing fee or apply to proceed without paying it. The deadline passed, and he did neither.
The court also noted that Hurtado-Obregon had not communicated with the court since starting the case. The report therefore recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning the dismissal would not bar refiling.
Judge Tunheim’s court recommended dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung signed the report and recommendation, which was not itself a final order or directly appealable judgment.
The detailed version
- Hurtado-Obregon v. United States · No. 0:24-cv-03044
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 28, 2024
Background
The court previously directed Faber Hurtado-Obregon to pay the filing fee or apply for permission to proceed without prepaying it. The court gave him 15 days and warned that failing to do so would lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The deadline passed. Hurtado-Obregon had not paid the filing fee, had not applied for that fee-waiver status, and had not communicated with the court about the case since commencing it.
Recommendation
The court recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling the action, although the report does not address any other requirements that might apply.
This document was a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. The notice stated that it was not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that written objections could be filed within 14 days after service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.