UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

John Wayne Brooks,                 Case No. 24-CV-3804 (LMP/SGE)        

              Petitioner,                                               

v.                              REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION               

Jerad Rardin, Warden,                                                   

              Respondent.                                               


   In a letter dated October 3, 2024, the Clerk of Court directed petitioner John Wayne 
Brooks to pay the filing fee for this matter or apply for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status 
within 15 days.  See ECF No. 2. Failure to do so, Brooks was warned, could result in this 
action being dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See id. 
   That deadline has now passed, and Brooks has not paid the filing fee for this matter 
or applied for IFP status. In fact, Brooks 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 Brooks, 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: November 5, 2024         s/ Shannon G. Elkins_________________   
                                Shannon G. Elkins                       
                                United States Magistrate Judge          

                                Brooks v. Rardin                        
                                Case No. 24-cv-3804 (LMP/SGE)           


                           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                                

John Wayne Brooks,                 Case No. 24-CV-3804 (LMP/SGE)        

              Petitioner,                                               

v.                              REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION               

Jerad Rardin, Warden,                                                   

              Respondent.                                               


   In a letter dated October 3, 2024, the Clerk of Court directed petitioner John Wayne 
Brooks to pay the filing fee for this matter or apply for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status 
within 15 days.  See ECF No. 2. Failure to do so, Brooks was warned, could result in this 
action being dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See id. 
   That deadline has now passed, and Brooks has not paid the filing fee for this matter 
or applied for IFP status. In fact, Brooks 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 Brooks, 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: November 5, 2024         s/ Shannon G. Elkins_________________   
                                Shannon G. Elkins                       
                                United States Magistrate Judge          

                                Brooks v. Rardin                        
                                Case No. 24-cv-3804 (LMP/SGE)           


                           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).