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 Carl Douglas Smith v. Lisa Stenseth et al., Judge Provinzino dismissed plaintiff Carl Douglas Smith's complaint without prejudice — meaning he may refile — for failure to prosecute his case.
Plaintiff Carl Douglas Smith, whose complaint was dismissed (without prejudice, so refiling may be possible). The named defendants — Lisa Stenseth, Victor Wanchena, Ashlee Berts, Joshua Barnes, Branden Tatum, John Doe, and Jane Doe — are not subject to any liability ruling.
What happened
In Carl Douglas Smith v. Lisa Stenseth, Victor Wanchena, Ashlee Berts, Joshua Barnes, Branden Tatum, John Doe, and Jane Doe, the plaintiff Carl Douglas Smith filed a complaint in federal court in Minnesota along with a request to proceed without paying court fees (known as proceeding without prepayment of filing fees). A magistrate judge, Douglas L. Micko, reviewed the case and issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that the complaint be dismissed because Smith failed to actively pursue his case — a concept courts call failure to prosecute.
Smith did not object to the magistrate judge's recommendation within the time allowed. When no objections are filed, the presiding judge reviews the recommendation only for clear, obvious errors. The court found no such errors in the recommendation.
Judge Provinzino adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full. As a result, Smith's complaint was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Smith is not permanently barred from bringing his claims again. His request to proceed without prepaying court fees was denied as moot, meaning the issue became irrelevant once the case was dismissed.
The detailed version
This order, issued by United States District Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the District of Minnesota, adopts a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko in the case Carl Douglas Smith v. Lisa Stenseth, Victor Wanchena, Ashlee Berts, Joshua Barnes, Branden Tatum, John Doe, and Jane Doe, Case No. 26-cv-499 (LMP/DLM).
Plaintiff Carl Douglas Smith filed a complaint (ECF No. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis — a legal term meaning a request to proceed without prepaying court filing fees — (ECF No. 2). Magistrate Judge Micko issued an R&R (ECF No. 9) recommending that Smith's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Failure to prosecute means that a plaintiff has not taken the steps necessary to move the case forward. The R&R also recommended denying Smith's in forma pauperis application as moot, since dismissal of the complaint would render that motion irrelevant.
Smith did not file any objections to the R&R within the permitted time period. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error — a deferential standard requiring an obvious mistake before the court would decline to adopt the recommendation.
Finding no clear error, Judge Provinzino adopted the R&R in its entirety. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, which means Smith is not permanently barred from refiling his claims. His motion to proceed without prepaying fees was denied as moot. The opinion does not describe the underlying substance of Smith's claims or identify what conduct by the named defendants gave rise to the lawsuit.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.