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, 

 (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, 

 (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).