Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled July 15, 2025

Neill v. Rardin

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:25-cv-00890
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Neill v. Rardin, Judge Tostrud dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denied pending motions as moot.

Who this affects

The action brought by Chase Neill against the listed defendants was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Neill’s pending motions were denied as moot.

What happened

In Neill v. Rardin, Chase Neill sued several defendants, including Warden Jared Rardin and other individuals identified in the case caption.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a report on June 10, 2025. No party objected, so the court reviewed it for clear error and found none.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the report, dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and denied Neill’s pending motions as moot.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Neill v. Rardin · No. 0:25-cv-00890
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
July 15, 2025

Background

Chase Neill brought this action against Warden Jared Rardin and the other defendants listed in the caption. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on June 10, 2025.

Court’s Review

No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the court therefore reviewed it for clear error. The court found no clear error after considering the case record.

Ruling

The court 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 denied as moot all pending motions filed by Chase Neill, identified as ECF Nos. 3, 11, 13, 17, 20, 22, 28, and 47, because the action had been dismissed without prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.