Doward v. City of Kettle River
- Leo Brisbois
- 0:24-cv-03970
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Doward v. City of Kettle River, Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommended dismissing claims against JT’s Towing Company without prejudice for lack of service and prosecution.
The recommendation affects the action against Defendant JT’s Towing Company. It recommends dismissal without prejudice because Monique Doward did not show proper service, did not establish good cause for more time, and did not respond to the court’s order. The recommendation does not state a disposition as to the other defendants.
What happened
In Doward v. City of Kettle River, Monique Doward did not provide proof that she properly served JT’s Towing Company with the summons and amended complaint within the required time. The court had previously told her to provide proof of service or explain why she needed more time.
The deadline passed without proof of service, a request for more time, or any response to the court’s order. The court therefore recommended dismissing the action against JT’s Towing Company without prejudice for failure to follow the order, lack of prosecution, and failure to properly serve the company.
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued the recommendation, not a final district court judgment. The recommendation says Doward could file written objections within 14 days after receiving it and that it was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Doward v. City of Kettle River · No. 0:24-cv-03970
- Leo Brisbois
- Apr. 28, 2025
Background
More than 90 days after Monique Doward filed her amended complaint, the docket did not show proof that she had properly served Defendant JT’s Towing Company. Doward had previously filed a proof-of-service form stating that she mailed unspecified documents to the company, but the court had explained that the form did not demonstrate proper service.
On March 24, 2025, the court issued an order directing Doward to provide proof of service or show good cause—an adequate reason—for more time to serve JT’s Towing Company. The order warned that failure to comply could lead to a recommendation that the action against that defendant be dismissed for failure to properly serve the defendant and failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. A copy of the order was emailed to Doward at the address she had provided, and the docket did not indicate that the email was undeliverable.
Court’s Analysis
The deadline for responding expired. Doward neither provided proof of service nor explained why the court should extend the service deadline. She also did not respond to the March 24, 2025 order in any manner. Because the court had warned her about the possible consequences of noncompliance, it recommended dismissal based on failure to follow the order, lack of prosecution, and failure to effect proper service.
Disposition and Procedure
The Report and Recommendation states: “this action as alleged against Defendant JT’s Towing Company be DISMISSED without prejudice.” “Without prejudice” means the recommendation does not bar a later filing on the same matter, although the opinion addresses only the action against JT’s Towing Company. The document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the district court. It states that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served and that the recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.
The opinion contains an apparent date inconsistency: one reference says the earlier order was issued on March 24, 2024, while later references identify it as March 24, 2025. The recommendation is dated April 27, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.