Jensen v. College Town Pizza
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:25-cv-03441
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Connor Jensen v. College Town Pizza, Judge Elkins recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Jensen did not serve the defendant or prosecute it.
Connor Jensen, who represented himself, is affected by the recommendation to dismiss his action against College Town Pizza, Inc. without prejudice. The opinion does not state the district court’s final action on the recommendation.
What happened
Connor Jensen v. College Town Pizza, Inc. concerns Jensen’s failure to serve College Town Pizza and his failure to file anything after the court ordered him to serve the defendant and later ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed.
The court said Jensen had not completed effective service, had not shown a good reason for the failure, and had not participated in the lawsuit despite receiving a warning. Although Jensen represented himself, the court said he still had to follow the federal and local rules and court orders.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The recommendation was not yet a district-court order or judgment, and the parties could file written objections within 14 days after being served.
The detailed version
- Jensen v. College Town Pizza · No. 0:25-cv-03441
- Shannon G. Elkins
- Apr. 2, 2026
Background
This matter came before the court on its own initiative. On January 12, 2026, the court ordered Connor Jensen to serve College Town Pizza, Inc. On February 24, 2026, the court issued an order requiring Jensen to explain within 21 days why his claims should not be dismissed. That order warned that failing to comply could lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
As of the date of the report and recommendation, Jensen had not made any filings. The court acknowledged that Jensen was representing himself but stated that self-represented litigants must still comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and court orders. The docket showed that Jensen had received a summons but had not completed effective service on the defendant.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with the rules or a court order. The court also explained that it has authority to dismiss a case on its own for failure to prosecute, without waiting for the defendant to file a motion.
The court further relied on Rule 4(m), which requires dismissal without prejudice when a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for extending the service period. The court found that Jensen had not fulfilled his service obligations and had not shown good cause.
Recommendation
Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The report explained that dismissal without prejudice does not prohibit Jensen from filing the case again if the law allows.
The report and recommendation was not an order or judgment of the district court and was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation, and a party could respond to objections within 14 days after receiving them.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.