Brooks v. Rardin
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Brooks v. Rardin
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOHN WAYNE BROOKS, Case No. 24-cv-3804 (LMP/SGE)
Petitioner,
v. ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JERAD RARDIN, Warden,
Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the November 5, 2024 Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, which
recommends dismissing Petitioner John Wayne Brooks’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. See ECF No. 7. Neither party objected to the R&R, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2),
so the Court reviews the R&R for clear error, Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795(8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). On October 3, 2024, the Clerk of Court sent a letter to Mr. Brooks directing him to pay the filing fee for this action or apply for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status within fifteen days. See ECF No. 2. The letter advised Mr. Brooks that if he did not pay the filing fee or apply for IFP status, his case could be summarily dismissed without prejudice.Id.
To date, Mr. Brooks has not paid the filing fee, applied for IFP status, or otherwise responded to the Clerk of Court’s October 3 letter. Accordingly, the R&R recommends dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See ECF No. 7 at 1. That conclusion is not clearly erroneous, so the Court adopts it in full. See MacDermott v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 23-cv-3914 (ECT/ECW),2024 WL 713964
, at *1 (D. Minn. Feb. 21, 2024) (dismissing action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) when prisoner-litigant failed to pay filing fee or apply for IFP status).
ORDER
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in this matter, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. The Petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: December 3, 2024 s/Laura M. Provinzino
Laura M. Provinzino
United States District Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOHN WAYNE BROOKS, Case No. 24-cv-3804 (LMP/SGE)
Petitioner,
v. ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JERAD RARDIN, Warden,
Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the November 5, 2024 Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, which
recommends dismissing Petitioner John Wayne Brooks’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. See ECF No. 7. Neither party objected to the R&R, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2),
so the Court reviews the R&R for clear error, Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795(8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). On October 3, 2024, the Clerk of Court sent a letter to Mr. Brooks directing him to pay the filing fee for this action or apply for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status within fifteen days. See ECF No. 2. The letter advised Mr. Brooks that if he did not pay the filing fee or apply for IFP status, his case could be summarily dismissed without prejudice.Id.
To date, Mr. Brooks has not paid the filing fee, applied for IFP status, or otherwise responded to the Clerk of Court’s October 3 letter. Accordingly, the R&R recommends dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See ECF No. 7 at 1. That conclusion is not clearly erroneous, so the Court adopts it in full. See MacDermott v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 23-cv-3914 (ECT/ECW),2024 WL 713964
, at *1 (D. Minn. Feb. 21, 2024) (dismissing action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) when prisoner-litigant failed to pay filing fee or apply for IFP status).
ORDER
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in this matter, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. The Petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: December 3, 2024 s/Laura M. Provinzino
Laura M. Provinzino
United States District Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown