Bell v. Duluth Prison Camp
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-00909
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Bell v. Duluth Prison Camp, Judge Bryan dismissed the action without prejudice after adopting a recommendation based on Bell’s failure to prosecute.
Michael Bell’s action was dismissed without prejudice; Duluth Prison Camp was the respondent.
What happened
Michael Bell brought this action against Duluth Prison Camp. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case because Bell failed to prosecute it.
Bell did not object to the recommendation before the objection deadline expired. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar a later filing of the action.
The detailed version
- Bell v. Duluth Prison Camp · No. 0:25-cv-00909
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- May 13, 2025
Background
Michael Bell was the petitioner, and Duluth Prison Camp was the respondent. The court considered a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz on April 17, 2025. The R&R recommended dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Review of the Recommendation
Bell did not object to the R&R, and the time to object had expired. Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the R&R for clear error. The court found no clear error in the recommendation.
Ruling
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the R&R. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar a later filing of the action, and ordered that judgment be entered.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.