UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Alexander Gallegos, Case No. 24-cv-3480 (ECT/TNL) Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Jared Rardin, Respondent.

On August 29, 2024, the Clerk of this Court sent Petitioner Alexander Gallegos a letter (1) stating that the Court had not received from Gallegos either this action’s filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”); (2) enclosing a copy of this Dis- trict’s template IFP application; and (3) warning Gallegos that if the Court did “not receive [his] filing fee or [IFP application]” within 15 days—that is, by September 13, 2024— “[his] case could be summarily dismissed without prejudice.” [ECF No. 2.] That deadline has now passed, and Gallegos has not submitted a filing fee or IFP application. (Indeed, he has not communicated with the Court in any way about this action since filing it.) Ac- cordingly, this Court now recommends dismissing this action without prejudice under Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App’x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“A district court has discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff’s failure to prose- cute, 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 PREJ- UDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

s/ Tony N. Leung Dated: October 1, 2024 __________________________________ Tony N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge Gallegos v. Rardin Case No. 24-cv-3480 (ECT/TNL) 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 Ap- peals.

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 objec- tions 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 Alexander Gallegos, Case No. 24-cv-3480 (ECT/TNL) Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Jared Rardin, Respondent.

On August 29, 2024, the Clerk of this Court sent Petitioner Alexander Gallegos a letter (1) stating that the Court had not received from Gallegos either this action’s filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”); (2) enclosing a copy of this Dis- trict’s template IFP application; and (3) warning Gallegos that if the Court did “not receive [his] filing fee or [IFP application]” within 15 days—that is, by September 13, 2024— “[his] case could be summarily dismissed without prejudice.” [ECF No. 2.] That deadline has now passed, and Gallegos has not submitted a filing fee or IFP application. (Indeed, he has not communicated with the Court in any way about this action since filing it.) Ac- cordingly, this Court now recommends dismissing this action without prejudice under Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App’x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“A district court has discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff’s failure to prose- cute, 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 PREJ- UDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

s/ Tony N. Leung Dated: October 1, 2024 __________________________________ Tony N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge Gallegos v. Rardin Case No. 24-cv-3480 (ECT/TNL) 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 Ap- peals.

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 objec- tions 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).