Hausfeld v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:17-cv-04360
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Hausfeld v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation and dismissed Brian Hausfeld’s complaint without prejudice for failing to prosecute.
Brian Hausfeld’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not state that the court decided the merits of his claims against the Minnesota Department of Human Services or the other defendants.
What happened
In Hausfeld v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez issued a report and recommendation on January 7, 2019. No party objected to it.
The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The opinion does not provide additional details about the failure to prosecute.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the recommendation and ordered the complaint dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Judgment was ordered entered.
The detailed version
- Hausfeld v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:17-cv-04360
- Eric Tostrud
- Jan. 24, 2019
Background
Brian Hausfeld filed a complaint against the Minnesota Department of Human Services and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the claims or the events underlying the complaint.
United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez issued a report and recommendation on January 7, 2019. No party objected to the recommendation.
Court’s Review
Because no party objected, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court found no clear error based on the case files, records, and proceedings.
Ruling
The court accepted the report and recommendation. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and ordered judgment entered. “Without prejudice” means the order does not state that refiling is barred, although the opinion does not address any requirements or consequences of refiling.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.