Mao v. Speedway Gas Station
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-00870
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Mao v. Speedway Gas Station, Magistrate Judge Wright recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Mao did not pay the required filing fee.
Samit Mao’s action against Speedway Gas Station, Gaurdem Security Group, and Devontie Qualls was recommended for dismissal without prejudice because Mao did not pay the required initial partial filing fee or otherwise communicate with the court.
What happened
In Mao v. Speedway Gas Station, the court had ordered Samit Mao to pay an initial partial filing fee of $22.65 within 21 days, by April 16, 2025. The order warned that failing to pay could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Mao did not pay the fee or communicate with the court after filing the case. The court therefore recommended dismissing the action without prejudice, meaning Mao could potentially bring it again.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued the recommendation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The recommendation was not a final order or judgment, and the notice stated that parties could file written objections within 14 days; it could not be appealed directly to the Eighth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Mao v. Speedway Gas Station · No. 0:25-cv-00870
- Eric Tostrud
- Apr. 24, 2025
Background
On March 26, 2025, the court ordered Plaintiff Samit Mao to pay an initial partial filing fee of $22.65 within 21 days, making the deadline April 16, 2025. The order warned that failure to pay could result in dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Mao did not pay the fee and did not otherwise communicate with the court after filing the case.
Recommendation
The court recommended dismissing the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The recommendation states that dismissal without prejudice would not bar refiling the action, but the opinion does not state whether any later refiling would succeed.
Procedure for objections
The document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. It states that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation and may respond to objections within 14 days after being served with them. It also states that the recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.