Dickens v. Allen Parish Jail
- Douglas Micko
- 0:24-cv-03448
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Dickens v. Allen Parish Jail, Magistrate Judge Micko recommended dismissing the action without prejudice after Dickens submitted neither the filing fee nor an IFP application.
Thomas Dickens and this action; the report and recommendation proposed dismissal without prejudice, subject to the District Court’s consideration and any timely objections.
What happened
In Dickens v. Allen Parish Jail, Thomas Dickens did not submit the required filing fee or an application to proceed without paying it after the court gave him 15 days to do so. He also did not communicate with the court about the case after filing it.
The court recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The opinion did not decide the underlying issues in Dickens’s case.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued the report and recommendation on September 27, 2024. It was not a final order or judgment, and the notice stated that the parties could file written objections within 14 days after being served.
The detailed version
- Dickens v. Allen Parish Jail · No. 0:24-cv-03448
- Douglas L. Micko
- Sept. 27, 2024
Background
Thomas Dickens filed this action, but the court had not received either the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying the fee. On August 28, 2024, the Clerk sent Dickens a letter giving him 15 days, until September 12, 2024, to submit one of those items. The letter warned that the case could be dismissed without prejudice if he did not comply.
The deadline passed without Dickens submitting the filing fee or an application. The opinion also states that Dickens did not communicate with the court about the action after filing it.
Recommendation
The court recommended dismissing the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Failure to prosecute means not moving a case forward or not complying with court requirements. The report and recommendation did not decide the underlying legal issues in the action.
Effect and objections
The document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court, and it was therefore not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The notice stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation, and that a response to objections could be filed within 14 days after service of the objections.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.