Carlson v. Schnell

Background

Joshua Jon Carlson sued Paul Schnell and other defendants. United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended dismissing the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 because Carlson had failed to prosecute it. The record states that Carlson had not complied with the court’s order to file an amended complaint.

Review of the Recommendation

Carlson filed a response to the report and recommendation. Because Carlson was representing himself, the district court construed that response as objections and read them liberally. The court explained that specific objections receive fresh review, while issues without specific objections are reviewed for clear error—a plainly incorrect result based on the record.

Carlson’s objections did not identify a legal or factual error warranting rejection of the recommendation. After reviewing the report and recommendation, the court found that it was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The footnote explains that the recommendation discussed both voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) and involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b), but Carlson did not address the recommendation for involuntary dismissal in his objections.

Ruling

The court overruled Carlson’s objections, adopted the February 8, 2021 report and recommendation, and dismissed Carlson’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The court ordered that judgment be entered. The opinion does not decide the merits of Carlson’s underlying claims.