Doe v. City of West Richland
Jane Doe v. City of West Richland, The; Brent Gerry; Selena Smathers; Steven Crown; Stacy Ryan; and Brooke Connor Ehr
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:26-cv-00803
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Jane Doe v. City of West Richland, Judge Bryan dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to prosecute it.
Plaintiffs who file lawsuits but fail to actively pursue them risk having their case dismissed under Rule 41(b); this order illustrates that such dismissals can occur early in litigation when a party takes no action.
What happened
In Jane Doe v. City of West Richland, The, et al. (Case No. 26-CV-00803), a plaintiff named Jane Doe sued the City of West Richland and several individual defendants in federal court in Minnesota. The case never moved forward — Doe failed to take the steps necessary to pursue her lawsuit.
A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) — a written proposal for how the judge should rule — recommending that the case be thrown out because the plaintiff did not prosecute, meaning she failed to actively pursue her case. Neither side objected to that recommendation within the time allowed.
Because no objections were filed, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan reviewed the R&R only for obvious errors, found none, adopted it, and dismissed the case without prejudice on April 1, 2026. Dismissal without prejudice means Jane Doe is not permanently barred from refiling her claims.
The detailed version
- Doe v. City of West Richland · No. 0:26-cv-00803
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Apr. 1, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Jane Doe filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the City of West Richland, The, and five individual defendants: Brent Gerry, Selena Smathers, Steven Crown, Stacy Ryan, and Brooke Connor Ehr. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the nature of the dispute.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) — a magistrate judge's written proposal for how the district judge should resolve a matter — at Document No. 3. The R&R recommended that the action be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it (i.e., fails to take the steps necessary to move the case forward).
Standard of Review
Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the time permitted under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). When no timely objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error, rather than conducting a full de novo (fresh, independent) review. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).
Ruling
Judge Bryan found no clear error in the R&R. The court adopted the R&R and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff is not permanently barred from refiling. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.