Wedington v. Office of Inspector General
Wedington v. Office of Inspector General
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Calvin S. Wedington, Case No. 18-cv-2694 (SRN/SER) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Office of the Inspector General, et. al., Defendants.
Calvin S. Wedington, 18915-037, FMC-Devens, P.O. Box 879, Ayer, MA 01432, pro se.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection (“Objection”) [Doc. No. 10] to United States Magistrate Judge Steven Rau’s January 14, 2019, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. No. 9]. Magistrate Judge Rau recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (“Complaint”) [Doc. No. 1] without prejudice. (R&R at 3.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s Objection, adopts the R&R in full, and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.
I. Background On September 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. No. 2]. On October 9, 2018, Magistrate Judge Rau granted Plaintiff’s IFP application. (Oct. 9, 2018 Order [Doc. No. 4].) Plaintiff was given until November 30, 2018 to pay an initial partial filing fee of $2.68 and was warned that, if he failed to do so, the action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff never paid the required filing fee. As a result, on January 14, 2019, Magistrate Judge Rau recommended that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. (R&R at 2.) On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a timely objection to Magistrate Judge Rau’s R&R. (Obj. at 1.)
II. Discussion This Court reviews de novo any portion of the magistrate judge’s opinion to which specific objections are made, and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” contained in that opinion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(3).
Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Rau’s recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. However, Plaintiff’s objections fail entirely to address the basis for Magistrate Judge Rau’s recommendation.
Because Plaintiff did not pay the required initial partial filing fee and did not communicate with the Court to seek additional time to pay the fee, the action is dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
See Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008).
IV. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Objection [Doc. No. 10] is OVERRULED; 2. Magistrate Judge Rau’s R&R [Doc. No. 9] is ADOPTED in its entirety; and 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 31, 2019 s/Susan Richard Nelson SUSAN RICHARD NELSON United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Calvin S. Wedington, Case No. 18-cv-2694 (SRN/SER) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Office of the Inspector General, et. al., Defendants.
Calvin S. Wedington, 18915-037, FMC-Devens, P.O. Box 879, Ayer, MA 01432, pro se.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection (“Objection”) [Doc. No. 10] to United States Magistrate Judge Steven Rau’s January 14, 2019, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. No. 9]. Magistrate Judge Rau recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (“Complaint”) [Doc. No. 1] without prejudice. (R&R at 3.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s Objection, adopts the R&R in full, and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.
I. Background On September 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. No. 2]. On October 9, 2018, Magistrate Judge Rau granted Plaintiff’s IFP application. (Oct. 9, 2018 Order [Doc. No. 4].) Plaintiff was given until November 30, 2018 to pay an initial partial filing fee of $2.68 and was warned that, if he failed to do so, the action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff never paid the required filing fee. As a result, on January 14, 2019, Magistrate Judge Rau recommended that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. (R&R at 2.) On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a timely objection to Magistrate Judge Rau’s R&R. (Obj. at 1.)
II. Discussion This Court reviews de novo any portion of the magistrate judge’s opinion to which specific objections are made, and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” contained in that opinion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(3).
Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Rau’s recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. However, Plaintiff’s objections fail entirely to address the basis for Magistrate Judge Rau’s recommendation.
Because Plaintiff did not pay the required initial partial filing fee and did not communicate with the Court to seek additional time to pay the fee, the action is dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
See Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008).
IV. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Objection [Doc. No. 10] is OVERRULED; 2. Magistrate Judge Rau’s R&R [Doc. No. 9] is ADOPTED in its entirety; and 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 31, 2019 s/Susan Richard Nelson SUSAN RICHARD NELSON United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.