Rushing v. West St. Paul Police Department
Marcus Rushing v. West St. Paul Police Department; Isabelle Lalor, Officer, Badge #24R45, in her individual and official capacities; and Other TBD Officers, in their individual and official capacities
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-01846
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Marcus Rushing v. West St. Paul Police Department, Judge Provinzino dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denied pending motions as moot.
Marcus Rushing's lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, and the pending motions and applications in the case were denied as moot. The order affected the named defendants by ending this action without deciding the underlying claims.
What happened
Marcus Rushing sued the West St. Paul Police Department, Isabelle Lalor, and other officers. The opinion does not explain the underlying allegations or why the case was not prosecuted.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino adopted the recommendation in full, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and denied all pending motions and applications as moot.
The detailed version
- Rushing v. West St. Paul Police Department · No. 0:26-cv-01846
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Sept. 11, 2026
Background
Marcus Rushing filed a complaint against the West St. Paul Police Department; Isabelle Lalor, identified as an officer with Badge #24R45, in her individual and official capacities; and other officers whose identities were to be determined, also in their individual and official capacities. The opinion does not describe the complaint's underlying claims or allegations.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued an August 20, 2026 Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. No party objected to the recommendation. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake.
Ruling
The court found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(b). It also denied as moot all pending motions and applications identified as ECF Nos. 2, 4, and 5. The order directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.