UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
                     DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                              


William Howell,                    Case No. 24-cv-3618 (JMB/DTS)        

     Plaintiff,                                                         

v.                               REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION              

Regions Hospital,                                                       

     Defendant.                                                         


   In a letter dated September 11, 2024, the Clerk of Court directed plaintiff William 
Howell to either pay the filing fee for this matter or submit an application to proceed in 
forma pauperis (IFP).  See Docket No. 2.  Howell was given 15 days to pay the filing fee 
or apply for IFP status, failing which—he was warned—this action could be dismissed 
without prejudice.  Id.                                                   
   That deadline has now passed, and Howell has not paid the required filing fee or 
submitted an IFP application.  In fact, Howell 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 Howell, 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                                    
   For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS THAT: this action be 
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 

Dated: October 9, 2024             __s/David T. Schultz_____              
                                 DAVID T. SCHULTZ                       
                                 U.S. 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                              


William Howell,                    Case No. 24-cv-3618 (JMB/DTS)        

     Plaintiff,                                                         

v.                               REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION              

Regions Hospital,                                                       

     Defendant.                                                         


   In a letter dated September 11, 2024, the Clerk of Court directed plaintiff William 
Howell to either pay the filing fee for this matter or submit an application to proceed in 
forma pauperis (IFP).  See Docket No. 2.  Howell was given 15 days to pay the filing fee 
or apply for IFP status, failing which—he was warned—this action could be dismissed 
without prejudice.  Id.                                                   
   That deadline has now passed, and Howell has not paid the required filing fee or 
submitted an IFP application.  In fact, Howell 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 Howell, 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                                    
   For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS THAT: this action be 
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 

Dated: October 9, 2024             __s/David T. Schultz_____              
                                 DAVID T. SCHULTZ                       
                                 U.S. 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).