Hicks v. Smith
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:21-cv-01957
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Hicks v. Smith, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied Hicks’s stay motion as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff Hicks’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and the motion for an agency stay was denied as moot. Defendants Daniel Isaac Smith and Endurance Broadcasting were affected by the dismissal of the action.
What happened
In Hicks v. Smith, Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended that the court accept his report and recommendation. No party objected, so the court reviewed it for clear error and found none.
The court denied Hicks’s motion for an agency stay as moot. It also dismissed Hicks’s action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Hicks failed to prosecute the case.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the report and recommendation, ordered the dismissal, and directed that judgment be entered. The order did not state that the dismissal was with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hicks v. Smith · No. 0:21-cv-01957
- Eric Tostrud
- Jan. 4, 2022
Background
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation on December 17, 2021. No party objected to it. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Rulings
The court found no clear error and ordered three things:
- It accepted the Report and Recommendation.
- It denied Hicks’s Motion for Agency Stay as moot.
- It dismissed Hicks’s action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
The court also ordered that judgment be entered. The opinion does not provide further details about the agency-stay motion or the conduct supporting the failure-to-prosecute dismissal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.