Mao v. Speedway Gas Station
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-00870
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Mao v. Speedway Gas Station, Judge Tostrud dismissed the action without prejudice because Mao failed to prosecute it.
Samit Mao's action against Speedway Gas Station, Gaurdem Security Group, and Devontie Qualls, Security Officer, was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Mao v. Speedway Gas Station, Samit Mao sued Speedway Gas Station, Gaurdem Security Group, and Devontie Qualls, identified as a security officer.
A magistrate judge issued a report recommending dismissal. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake.
The court found no clear error, accepted the recommendation, and dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Mao v. Speedway Gas Station · No. 0:25-cv-00870
- Eric Tostrud
- May 23, 2025
Background
Samit Mao brought this action against Speedway Gas Station, Gaurdem Security Group, and Devontie Qualls, identified in the caption as a security officer.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on April 24, 2026. The opinion states that no party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake.
Ruling
The court found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation. It dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court also ordered that judgment be entered.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.