UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Vontia Jones,                     Case No. 24-CV-3671 (KMM/TNL)         

              Petitioner,                                               

v.                              REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION               

Michael Segal, Warden,                                                  

              Respondent.                                               


   In a letter dated September 16, 2024, the Clerk of Court directed petitioner Vontia 
Jones to pay the filing fee for this matter or apply for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status.  
See Dkt. No. 2.  Jones was further warned that if she did not pay the filing fee or submit 
an IFP application by October 1, 2024, this matter could be dismissed without prejudice.  
See id.                                                                   
   That deadline has now passed, and Jones has not paid the filing fee for this matter 
or applied for IFP status.  In fact, Jones 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 Jones, 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.           
                                s/Tony N. Leung                         
Dated: October 21, 2024                                                 
                                __________________________________      
                                Tony N. Leung                           
                                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                                

Vontia Jones,                     Case No. 24-CV-3671 (KMM/TNL)         

              Petitioner,                                               

v.                              REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION               

Michael Segal, Warden,                                                  

              Respondent.                                               


   In a letter dated September 16, 2024, the Clerk of Court directed petitioner Vontia 
Jones to pay the filing fee for this matter or apply for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status.  
See Dkt. No. 2.  Jones was further warned that if she did not pay the filing fee or submit 
an IFP application by October 1, 2024, this matter could be dismissed without prejudice.  
See id.                                                                   
   That deadline has now passed, and Jones has not paid the filing fee for this matter 
or applied for IFP status.  In fact, Jones 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 Jones, 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.           
                                s/Tony N. Leung                         
Dated: October 21, 2024                                                 
                                __________________________________      
                                Tony N. Leung                           
                                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).