Kalinosky v. City of West Saint Paul
Noel-Jeffrey Kalinosky v. City of West Saint Paul; AVR, Inc.; McNamara Contracting, Inc.; Dakota County; Bituminous Roadway, Inc.; Minnesota Curb & Gutter Concrete Company
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:26-cv-02089
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Kalinosky v. City of West Saint Paul, Judge Bryan dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute after adopting Magistrate Brisbois's unopposed recommendation.
Plaintiffs or petitioners who fail to actively pursue their federal lawsuits may have their cases dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Parties who do not object to a magistrate judge's recommendations within the allowed time will have those recommendations reviewed only for clear error.
What happened
In Kalinosky v. City of West Saint Paul, Noel-Jeffrey Kalinosky filed suit against the City of West Saint Paul, AVR, Inc., McNamara Contracting, Inc., Dakota County, Bituminous Roadway, Inc., and Minnesota Curb & Gutter Concrete Company. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting the case be thrown out because Kalinosky failed to move the case forward.
Kalinosky did not object to the magistrate's recommendation within the allowed time, and neither did the defendants. Because no one objected, the presiding judge reviewed the recommendation only for obvious legal errors and found none.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice under the federal rule allowing dismissal for failure to prosecute. Because the case was dismissed, Judge Bryan also denied as moot Kalinosky's request to proceed without paying filing fees, his motion for a preliminary injunction (an emergency court order), and his motion to consolidate related cases.
The detailed version
- Kalinosky v. City of West Saint Paul · No. 0:26-cv-02089
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Aug. 20, 2026
Background
Petitioner Noel-Jeffrey Kalinosky filed this action against the City of West Saint Paul, AVR, Inc., McNamara Contracting, Inc., Dakota County, Bituminous Roadway, Inc., and Minnesota Curb & Gutter Concrete Company. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. Along with the complaint, Kalinosky filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs (commonly called an in forma pauperis application), a motion for a preliminary injunction, and a motion to consolidate related actions.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated November 25, 2024, recommending that the Court dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute — meaning Kalinosky had not taken the steps necessary to move the case forward. Neither Kalinosky nor the defendants filed objections to the R&R within the time allowed under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).
Standard of Review
When no party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), as authority for this standard.
Rulings
Finding no clear error in the R&R, Judge Bryan issued the following orders:
- R&R Adopted: The R&R (Doc. No. 12) was adopted in full.
- Case Dismissed Without Prejudice: The action was dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Dismissal without prejudice means Kalinosky is not necessarily barred from refiling, though the opinion does not address any conditions or limitations on refiling.
- Fee Application Denied as Moot: Kalinosky's application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs (Doc. No. 2) was denied as moot because the dismissal rendered it no longer relevant.
- Preliminary Injunction Denied as Moot: Kalinosky's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 3) was denied as moot for the same reason.
- Motion to Consolidate Denied as Moot: Kalinosky's motion to consolidate related actions (Doc. No. 10) was denied as moot.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.