Smith v. Stenseth
Carl Douglas Smith v. Lisa Stenseth, Victor Wanchena, Ashlee Berts, Joshua Barnes, Branden Tatum, John Doe, and Jane Doe
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-00499
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Smith v. Stenseth, Judge Provinzino dismissed Carl Douglas Smith's complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Carl Douglas Smith, the plaintiff, whose complaint is dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of refiling. The seven defendants (Lisa Stenseth, Victor Wanchena, Ashlee Berts, Joshua Barnes, Branden Tatum, John Doe, and Jane Doe) are not discussed substantively in the opinion.
What happened
In Smith v. Stenseth (Case No. 26-cv-499), plaintiff Carl Douglas Smith filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against seven defendants: Lisa Stenseth, Victor Wanchena, Ashlee Berts, Joshua Barnes, Branden Tatum, and two unnamed defendants (John Doe and Jane Doe). The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in the complaint.
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Smith's complaint be dismissed without prejudice — meaning Smith is not permanently barred from refiling — because Smith failed to prosecute his case, meaning he did not take the steps required to move the case forward. The magistrate judge also recommended denying Smith's request to proceed without paying court filing fees (a request known as an in forma pauperis application) as moot, meaning the dismissal made that request irrelevant.
Smith did not file any objections to the R&R within the time allowed. Judge Laura M. Provinzino reviewed the R&R for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. As a result, Smith's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and his fee-waiver application is denied as moot.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Stenseth · No. 0:26-cv-00499
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Mar. 17, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Carl Douglas Smith filed a complaint (ECF No. 1) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against seven named and unnamed defendants. The opinion does not describe the substance of the underlying claims. Smith also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a request to proceed without prepaying court filing fees — at ECF No. 2.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) at ECF No. 9 recommending two actions: (1) dismissal of Smith's complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning Smith did not take the procedural steps required to advance his case; and (2) denial of Smith's IFP application as moot, because dismissal of the complaint would render the fee-waiver request academic.
The opinion does not detail what specific failures to prosecute occurred, such as failure to serve defendants or comply with court orders.
Standard of Review
Because Smith filed no objections to the R&R within the time period allowed, Judge Provinzino reviewed the R&R under the deferential 'clear error' standard. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), unobjected-to portions of an R&R are reviewed only for clear error.
Ruling
Finding no clear error, Judge Provinzino adopted the R&R in full. The specific dispositions are:
- The R&R (ECF No. 9) is adopted.
- Smith's complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice — meaning Smith is not permanently barred from refiling if he can cure the deficiencies.
- Smith's IFP motion (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot.
Notes on What the Opinion Does Not Address
The opinion does not describe the nature of Smith's claims against the defendants, what the defendants allegedly did, or what specific conduct constituted the failure to prosecute. The underlying merits were not reached.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.