Pantoe v. Caine & Weiner Co., Inc
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-02959
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Pantoe v. Caine & Weiner Co., Inc., Judge Menendez dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute after accepting an unobjected-to recommendation.
Mario Pantoe’s case against Caine & Weiner Co., Inc. was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Pantoe v. Caine & Weiner Co., Inc., the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation dated March 29, 2024. Neither party filed objections within the permitted time.
Without objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. It found no error and accepted the recommendation in full.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez dismissed the matter without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Pantoe v. Caine & Weiner Co., Inc · No. 0:23-cv-02959
- Katherine Menendez
- May 13, 2024
Background
The case was brought by Mario Pantoe against Caine & Weiner Co., Inc. The court considered the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko on March 29, 2024. No objections were filed within the allowed period.
Court’s review
When no specific objections are filed, the district court reviews a magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error. After reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court found no error—clear or otherwise—and accepted the recommendation in full.
Ruling
Judge Katherine M. Menendez ordered that the matter be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. “Without prejudice” means the order did not bar a later filing based solely on this dismissal. The opinion did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.