Gibbons v. Bjorkland
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:21-cv-02416
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Gibbons v. Bjorkland, Judge Menendez dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute after adopting an unobjected-to recommendation.
The action brought by Andrew J. Gibbons against Ethan C. Bjorkland and the other named defendants was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
What happened
Andrew J. Gibbons’s case against Ethan C. Bjorkland and other defendants came before the court after a magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute. The recommendation relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b).
The deadline for objections passed, and the court gave Gibbons another opportunity to object. Gibbons then stated that he had no objections to the recommendation.
Judge Menendez found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Gibbons v. Bjorkland · No. 0:21-cv-02416
- Katherine Menendez
- Sept. 29, 2022
Background
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on July 1, 2022. She recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b).
The deadline for objections expired. Andrew J. Gibbons later requested a case-status update and sent a letter to the Clerk of Court. The district court then ordered Gibbons to file any objections by October 11, 2022. On September 28, 2022, Gibbons responded that he had no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Court’s Review
Because Gibbons did not make specific objections, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues. After reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court concluded that Magistrate Judge Wright had committed no error, clear or otherwise.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rules 4(m) and 41(b). The court also directed that judgment be entered. The order did not decide the underlying merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.