UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Alvin Perkins,                     Case No. 24-cv-1909 (JMB/JFD)        

              Petitioner,                                               

v.                              REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION               

Linda Stenseth,                                                         

              Respondent.                                               

   On July 1, 2024, this Court issued an order requiring Petitioner Alvin Perkins to 
submit a filing showing cause why the Court should not recommend dismissing his § 2254 
petition for failing to comply with the relevant limitations period and/or Mr. Perkins’s 
failing to exhaust relevant state-court remedies. (See Dkt. No. 7 at 7–8.) The Order gave 
Mr. Perkins until July 29, 2024, to submit this filing, failing which the Court would 
recommend dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (See id. at 8.) 
Mr. Perkins has not submitted the ordered filing. (See Docket.) Accordingly, this Court 
now recommends dismissing this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 

 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“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.”).               
   Furthermore, a § 2254 petitioner cannot appeal an adverse ruling on his petition 
unless he is granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”). See 

(c)(1); 
Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). A court may not grant a COA unless the petitioner “has made a 
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

(c)(2). And 

“[w]hen the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching 
the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim[s]”—as here—“a COA should issue when 
the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason 
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 
Slack v. McDaniel, 

 (2000). Here, there is no question that Mr. Perkins 

was ordered to address threshold problems in his § 2254 petition and failed to do so. The 
Court therefore recommends not granting Mr. Perkins a COA.                
                     RECOMMENDATION                                     
   Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT IS RECOMMENDED that:                                                   

        1.   This  action  be  DISMISSED  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE  under     
             Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 
        2.   Petitioner Alvin Perkins not be granted a certificate of appealability. 

Dated: August 6, 2024           _s/  John F. Docherty_______________    
                                JOHN F. DOCHERTY                        
                                United States Magistrate Judge          
                           NOTICE                                       
Filing Objections:  This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the 
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.                                                                  
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a 
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being 
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.  A party may respond to those 
objections  within  14  days  after  being  served  a  copy  of  the  objections.    See  Local 
Rule 72.2(b)(2).  All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set 
forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).                                              

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Alvin Perkins,                     Case No. 24-cv-1909 (JMB/JFD)        

              Petitioner,                                               

v.                              REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION               

Linda Stenseth,                                                         

              Respondent.                                               

   On July 1, 2024, this Court issued an order requiring Petitioner Alvin Perkins to 
submit a filing showing cause why the Court should not recommend dismissing his § 2254 
petition for failing to comply with the relevant limitations period and/or Mr. Perkins’s 
failing to exhaust relevant state-court remedies. (See Dkt. No. 7 at 7–8.) The Order gave 
Mr. Perkins until July 29, 2024, to submit this filing, failing which the Court would 
recommend dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (See id. at 8.) 
Mr. Perkins has not submitted the ordered filing. (See Docket.) Accordingly, this Court 
now recommends dismissing this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 

 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“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.”).               
   Furthermore, a § 2254 petitioner cannot appeal an adverse ruling on his petition 
unless he is granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”). See 

(c)(1); 
Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). A court may not grant a COA unless the petitioner “has made a 
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

(c)(2). And 

“[w]hen the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching 
the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim[s]”—as here—“a COA should issue when 
the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason 
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 
Slack v. McDaniel, 

 (2000). Here, there is no question that Mr. Perkins 

was ordered to address threshold problems in his § 2254 petition and failed to do so. The 
Court therefore recommends not granting Mr. Perkins a COA.                
                     RECOMMENDATION                                     
   Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT IS RECOMMENDED that:                                                   

        1.   This  action  be  DISMISSED  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE  under     
             Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 
        2.   Petitioner Alvin Perkins not be granted a certificate of appealability. 

Dated: August 6, 2024           _s/  John F. Docherty_______________    
                                JOHN F. DOCHERTY                        
                                United States Magistrate Judge          
                           NOTICE                                       
Filing Objections:  This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the 
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.                                                                  
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a 
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being 
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.  A party may respond to those 
objections  within  14  days  after  being  served  a  copy  of  the  objections.    See  Local 
Rule 72.2(b)(2).  All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set 
forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).