Holmes v. County of Ramsey
- Dulce Foster
- 0:24-cv-02879
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Holmes v. County of Ramsey, Magistrate Judge Foster recommended dismissing the action without prejudice because Holmes did not pay the required filing fee.
The recommendation affects Stephan Nicholas Holmes and his action against the listed defendants. It recommends dismissal without prejudice, rather than entering a final dismissal order.
What happened
Holmes v. County of Ramsey concerns Stephan Nicholas Holmes’s federal action against the listed defendants. The court had ordered Holmes to pay an initial filing fee of $12.00 by August 27, 2024.
Holmes did not pay the fee and had not communicated with the court since filing the action. The court therefore considered whether to recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended dismissing the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The recommendation was not a final order or judgment, and the notice allowed the parties 14 days to file specific written objections.
The detailed version
- Holmes v. County of Ramsey · No. 0:24-cv-02879
- Dulce J. Foster
- Sept. 4, 2024
Background
On May 15, 2024, the court ordered Stephan Nicholas Holmes to submit an initial partial filing fee of $12.00. The order gave Holmes until August 27, 2024, to pay the fee and stated that failure to do so would lead the court to recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Analysis
The report states that Holmes did not submit the required fee and had not communicated with the court since filing the action. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order. Based on Holmes’s failure to pay the required fee and lack of communication, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Recommendation and Notice
The court recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). This Report and Recommendation was not an order or judgment of the District Court and was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The notice stated that a party could file and serve specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation, and that a party could respond within 14 days after being served with objections.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.