UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Roger Jerome Day, M.D.,                   Civ. No. 23-3826 (PAM/ECW)      

          Plaintiff,                                                 

v.                                                        ORDER           

Keith Ellison, Tim Walz, and Dan Ganin,                                   
in their personal and official capacities,                                

          Defendants.                                                

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which was filed 
on June 26, 2024.  Local Rule 7.1(c)(2) provides that the non-moving party must file and 
serve its response within 21 days after the filing of a motion to dismiss.  D. Minn. Local 
Rules 7.1(c)(2).  “If a party fails to timely file and serve a memorandum of law, the court 
may”  cancel  the  hearing  or  “take  any  other  action  the  court  considers  appropriate.”  
Id. 7.1(g).    Here,  Plaintiff  has  filed  neither  a  responsive  memorandum  of  law  in 
opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which would have been due on July 18, 
2024, nor a request asking for more time to file such a response.         
Therefore,  the  Court  cancels  the  hearing  scheduled  for  August  8,  2024,  and 
dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.  See Henderson 
v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 

 (8th Cir. 2008) (“A district court has 
discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, or to 
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any court order.”).   
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                              
1.   The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 11) is CANCELLED;  

2.   Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 10) is DENIED as moot; and  
2.   The Complaint (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice due to 
     Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.                               
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                      

Dated: July 29, 2024                   s/ Paul A. Magnuson                
                                  Paul A. Magnuson                   
                                  United States District Court Judge 

             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Roger Jerome Day, M.D.,                   Civ. No. 23-3826 (PAM/ECW)      

          Plaintiff,                                                 

v.                                                        ORDER           

Keith Ellison, Tim Walz, and Dan Ganin,                                   
in their personal and official capacities,                                

          Defendants.                                                

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which was filed 
on June 26, 2024.  Local Rule 7.1(c)(2) provides that the non-moving party must file and 
serve its response within 21 days after the filing of a motion to dismiss.  D. Minn. Local 
Rules 7.1(c)(2).  “If a party fails to timely file and serve a memorandum of law, the court 
may”  cancel  the  hearing  or  “take  any  other  action  the  court  considers  appropriate.”  
Id. 7.1(g).    Here,  Plaintiff  has  filed  neither  a  responsive  memorandum  of  law  in 
opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which would have been due on July 18, 
2024, nor a request asking for more time to file such a response.         
Therefore,  the  Court  cancels  the  hearing  scheduled  for  August  8,  2024,  and 
dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.  See Henderson 
v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 

 (8th Cir. 2008) (“A district court has 
discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, or to 
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any court order.”).   
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                              
1.   The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 11) is CANCELLED;  

2.   Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 10) is DENIED as moot; and  
2.   The Complaint (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice due to 
     Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.                               
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                      

Dated: July 29, 2024                   s/ Paul A. Magnuson                
                                  Paul A. Magnuson                   
                                  United States District Court Judge