Mays v. Holmes

Background

Plaintiff Otis Mays filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against Bernard Holmes and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or causes of action.

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on September 3, 2025, recommending that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute — meaning Mays had not taken the steps necessary to move his case forward. Mays did not file any objection to the R&R within the applicable deadline.

Standard of Review

Because no objection was filed, Judge Menendez reviewed the R&R only for clear error, citing Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021), which in turn relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Clear error review is a deferential standard under which a magistrate judge's recommendation is upheld unless the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

Ruling

Judge Menendez found no clear error in the R&R and adopted it in full. The court ordered:

1. The R&R (Dkt. 4) is accepted. 2. The case is dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff is not permanently barred from refiling. Rule 41(b) authorizes a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with the rules or a court order.

Notes

The opinion does not describe the nature of Mays's claims, the identity or roles of the defendants, or the specific conduct that constituted failure to prosecute.