Howell v. Regions Hospital
- David Schultz
- 0:24-cv-03618
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Howell v. Regions Hospital, Magistrate Judge Schultz recommended dismissal without prejudice because Howell neither paid the fee nor sought permission to proceed without paying.
William Howell, whose case was recommended for dismissal without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it.
What happened
In Howell v. Regions Hospital, the clerk told William Howell to pay the filing fee or apply to proceed without paying it. Howell received 15 days to do so and was warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not respond.
The deadline passed, and Howell had neither paid the fee nor submitted the application. He also had not communicated with the court since starting the case.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissing the case without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The recommendation was not yet a final court order; the notice allowed written objections within 14 days after service.
The detailed version
- Howell v. Regions Hospital · No. 0:24-cv-03618
- David Schultz
- Oct. 9, 2024
Background
William Howell filed this action against Regions Hospital. In a September 11, 2024 letter, the clerk directed Howell either to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying the fee. The clerk gave him 15 days and warned that the action could be dismissed without prejudice if he did neither.
Court’s Analysis
The deadline passed. Howell had not paid the filing fee, submitted the application, or communicated with the court since beginning the case. The court relied on Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court rules or orders.
Recommendation and Notice
Judge David T. Schultz recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. “Without prejudice” means the recommendation did not bar a later filing based solely on this dismissal. The document was a report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment, and therefore was 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 recommendation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.