UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Sharease Harrison,                Case No. 24-CV-2657 (JWB/ECW)         

              Petitioner,                                               

v.                              REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION               

Federal Bureau of Prisons and Waseca                                    
FCI,                                                                    

              Respondents.                                              


   In a letter dated July 9, 2024, the Clerk of Court directed petitioner Sharease 
Harrison to pay the $5.00 filing fee for this habeas corpus matter or, if she was unable to 
pay that filing fee, apply for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status.  See Dkt. No 2.  Harrison 
was given 15 days to pay the required filing fee or apply for IFP status, failing this action 
could be dismissed without prejudice.  See id.                            
   That deadline has now passed, and Harrison has not paid the filing fee or 
submitted an IFP application. In fact, Harrison has not communicated with the Court 
about this case at all since commencing this action.  Accordingly, this Court now 
recommends, consistent with the warning previously given to Harrison, that this action be 
dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for 
failure to prosecute.  See 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.”).                                    

                      RECOMMENDATION                                    
   Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT            
PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.           

Dated: August 7, 2024           s/Elizabeth Cowan Wright                
                                ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT                  
                                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                                

Sharease Harrison,                Case No. 24-CV-2657 (JWB/ECW)         

              Petitioner,                                               

v.                              REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION               

Federal Bureau of Prisons and Waseca                                    
FCI,                                                                    

              Respondents.                                              


   In a letter dated July 9, 2024, the Clerk of Court directed petitioner Sharease 
Harrison to pay the $5.00 filing fee for this habeas corpus matter or, if she was unable to 
pay that filing fee, apply for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status.  See Dkt. No 2.  Harrison 
was given 15 days to pay the required filing fee or apply for IFP status, failing this action 
could be dismissed without prejudice.  See id.                            
   That deadline has now passed, and Harrison has not paid the filing fee or 
submitted an IFP application. In fact, Harrison has not communicated with the Court 
about this case at all since commencing this action.  Accordingly, this Court now 
recommends, consistent with the warning previously given to Harrison, that this action be 
dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for 
failure to prosecute.  See 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.”).                                    

                      RECOMMENDATION                                    
   Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT            
PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.           

Dated: August 7, 2024           s/Elizabeth Cowan Wright                
                                ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT                  
                                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).