Starnes v. MCF Rush City Warden
- David Doty
- 0:24-cv-04169
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Starnes v. MCF Rush City Warden, Magistrate Judge Elkins recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Matthew Starnes's action was recommended for dismissal without prejudice because he did not submit the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying it by the court's deadline.
What happened
Matthew Starnes brought this action against the MCF Rush City Warden. The Clerk told Starnes that he had to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it by November 27, 2024.
Starnes did neither by the deadline. The court therefore recommended dismissing the action without prejudice because he failed to prosecute the case.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued the recommendation on December 17, 2024. The recommendation was not a final order, and the parties could file written objections within 14 days after receiving it.
The detailed version
- Starnes v. MCF Rush City Warden · No. 0:24-cv-04169
- David Doty
- Dec. 17, 2024
Background
The Clerk sent Matthew Starnes a November 12, 2024 letter stating that the court had not received either the filing fee for this action or an application to proceed without paying the fee. The letter gave Starnes 15 days, until November 27, 2024, to submit one of those items and warned that the case could be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to do so.
Court’s analysis
The deadline passed without Starnes submitting the filing fee or the application. The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order.
Recommendation and next steps
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The report and recommendation was not a final order or judgment and was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. A party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation, and 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.