Trischan v. Waseca
- Michael Davis
- 0:25-cv-04743
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Trischan v. FCI Waseca, Judge Davis dismissed pro se petitioner Venetia Trischan's case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Pro se litigants who fail to take required steps to advance their cases in federal court, and prisoners or individuals with matters against federal correctional institutions.
What happened
In Trischan v. FCI Waseca (Civil File No. 25-4743), pro se petitioner Venetia Trischan brought a case against FCI Waseca, a federal correctional institution. The case came before the court after United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation on January 27, 2026, recommending dismissal. Trischan filed no objections to that recommendation.
Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a limited form of review that looks for obvious mistakes rather than conducting a full independent analysis. The court found no clear error and adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in full.
Judge Michael J. Davis ordered the case dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning Trischan did not take the steps needed to move the case forward. A dismissal without prejudice means Trischan is not permanently barred from refiling, though any future filing would be subject to applicable rules and deadlines.
The detailed version
- Trischan v. Waseca · No. 0:25-cv-04743
- Michael Davis
- Feb. 19, 2026
Background
Petitioner Venetia Trischan, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), brought this matter against FCI Waseca, a federal correctional institution. The opinion does not describe the underlying legal claims or the nature of the petition, so the specific cause of action cannot be determined from the text of this order alone.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation on January 27, 2026, recommending dismissal of the matter. In the federal court system, magistrate judges may assist district judges by making preliminary findings and recommendations; parties typically have 14 days to file objections. Here, Trischan filed no objections.
Standard of Review
Because no objections were filed, Judge Davis reviewed the Report and Recommendation only for clear error, citing 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 — the court looks only for obvious mistakes rather than independently reconsidering the issues. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Davis adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and dismissed the matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Failure to prosecute means the petitioner did not take the necessary steps to advance the case. A dismissal without prejudice does not permanently bar refiling, though any future action would be subject to applicable procedural rules and deadlines.
Limitations of This Summary
The order does not describe the underlying claims, the factual background, or the specific steps Trischan failed to take. This summary is therefore limited to what appears in the dismissal order itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.