Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Walls
Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Alexander Walls, Moshe Davis, Michael Wegner, Jeremy Riley, Davis Mueller, David Mathes, and City of Minneapolis
- Elsa Bullard
- 0:25-cv-01693
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Young v. Walls, Magistrate Judge Bullard recommends dismissing claims against defendant Michael Wegner because plaintiffs served him a week late and never showed good cause for the delay.
Plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young, who risk losing their claims against Defendant Michael Wegner if the district judge adopts this recommendation; and Defendant Michael Wegner, who would be dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice. The other defendants named in the case are not affected by this recommendation.
What happened
In Young v. Walls, No. 25-CV-1693, plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young filed a lawsuit on April 24, 2025, against several defendants including Michael Wegner and the City of Minneapolis. Under the federal rules governing service of process, plaintiffs had 90 days—until July 23, 2025—to formally deliver the lawsuit paperwork to each defendant. Records showed that Defendant Wegner was not served until August 1, 2025, about a week after that deadline passed.
The court issued a show-cause order on August 28, 2025, giving plaintiffs until September 29, 2025, to either prove timely service on Wegner or explain why the deadline should be extended. Plaintiffs responded by filing an affidavit confirming the late August 1 service date, but they never asked for an extension or offered any explanation for missing the deadline. Although emails attached to a court filing suggested Wegner may have been trying to avoid service, plaintiffs provided no supporting facts to back up that claim.
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard recommends that the claims against Defendant Michael Wegner be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the claims could potentially be refiled. Judge Bullard found that plaintiffs failed to show either 'good cause'—which would require a mandatory extension—or 'excusable neglect,' which could support a permissive extension. The recommendation is not a final court order; the parties have 14 days to file written objections, after which a district judge will decide whether to adopt it.
The detailed version
- Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Walls · No. 0:25-cv-01693
- Elsa M. Bullard
- Oct. 3, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young filed their Complaint on April 24, 2025. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), plaintiffs must serve a copy of the summons and complaint on each defendant within 90 days of filing. That deadline fell on July 23, 2025. The court's docket showed no timely proof of service on Defendant Michael Wegner.
Show-Cause Order
On August 28, 2025—approximately five weeks after the deadline—Magistrate Judge Bullard issued a show-cause order directing plaintiffs to either provide proof of timely service on Wegner or demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve him, with a response deadline of September 29, 2025. The order warned that failure to comply could result in a recommendation to dismiss the claims against Wegner for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiffs' Response
On September 25, 2025, plaintiffs filed an affidavit of service showing that Wegner was served on August 1, 2025—about a week after the July 23 deadline. The court treated this filing as a concession that timely service did not occur. Plaintiffs did not request a formal extension of time and did not address Wegner in their memorandum responding to a separate motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Walls (Dkt. No. 21), even though that memorandum was filed two weeks after the show-cause order. While emails attached to a supporting declaration suggested that Wegner had been 'avoiding service,' plaintiffs provided no facts in their filings to substantiate that allegation.
Legal Standards Applied
Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for a plaintiff who misses the 90-day service deadline:
1. Mandatory extension: If the plaintiff shows 'good cause' for the failure, the court must extend the time for service. Plaintiffs made no such showing here.
2. Permissive extension: Even absent good cause, a court may grant an extension if the plaintiff demonstrates 'excusable neglect.' Colasante v. Wells Fargo Corp., 81 Fed. Appx. 611, 612 (8th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs made no such showing here either.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Bullard recommends that plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Michael Wegner be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m), citing Bullock v. United States, 160 F.3d 441, 442 (8th Cir. 1998), which affirmed a district court's dismissal without prejudice on the same grounds. Dismissal without prejudice means the claims are not permanently barred — plaintiffs could potentially refile them, subject to any applicable statutes of limitations or other legal constraints.
Procedural Posture
Because this is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge (a judicial officer who assists the district judge but cannot enter final orders in contested civil cases without consent), it is not itself a final, appealable order. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party may file written objections within 14 days of being served a copy. Responses to objections are due within 14 more days. The assigned district judge (Judge Paul A. Magnuson, based on the 'PAM' designation in the case number) will then decide whether to adopt, modify, or reject the recommendation. This Report and Recommendation does not address claims against any defendant other than Wegner.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.