UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
                 DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               

             *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *    

Charles Edward Fraction,                Civil No. 22-3019 (PJS/LIB)       

          Plaintiff,                                                 

vs.                                     ORDER ADOPTING               
                                                                        REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
Unknown officials,                                                        

          Defendants.                                                

             *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *    

Based upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. 
Brisbois, and after an independent review of the files, records and proceedings in the above-entitled 
matter, IT IS ORDERED:                                                    
1.  The present action is DISMISSED without prejudice1 for Plaintiff’s failure to comply 
  with the Court’s November 15, 2023, Order, [Docket No. 27].        
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                 

DATED: 2/15/2024                   s/Patrick J. Schiltz________________   
At Minneapolis, Minnesota          Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge        
                              United States District Court           

1 Unless the Court specifically orders otherwise, a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) is considered to be a dismissal 
with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has cautioned against dismissing 
a claim with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) unless there has been “willful disobedience of a court order or continued 
or persistent failure to prosecute a complaint.” Given v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 1984). 
Instead,  a  court  should  “consider  whether  a  less  severe  sanction  could  remedy  the  effect  of  the  litigant’s 
transgressions.” Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 

 (8th Cir. 2000). This is not to say that the Court must 
find that the litigant “acted in bad faith, but requires ‘only that he acted intentionally as opposed to accidentally or 
involuntarily.’” Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 

 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Rodgers v. Univ. of Missouri, 

, 1219 (8th Cir. 1998)). However, neither prior warning nor admonition to a litigant is required before 
a Court may dismiss said litigant’s action sua sponte. Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 

 (8th Cir. 2000); 
see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 

 (1962). In the present case, the Court cannot definitively conclude 
that Plaintiff’s conduct was willful disobedience. Thus, the Court recommends the less severe sanction of dismissal 
without prejudice.                                                        

              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
                 DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               

             *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *    

Charles Edward Fraction,                Civil No. 22-3019 (PJS/LIB)       

          Plaintiff,                                                 

vs.                                     ORDER ADOPTING               
                                                                        REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
Unknown officials,                                                        

          Defendants.                                                

             *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *    

Based upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. 
Brisbois, and after an independent review of the files, records and proceedings in the above-entitled 
matter, IT IS ORDERED:                                                    
1.  The present action is DISMISSED without prejudice1 for Plaintiff’s failure to comply 
  with the Court’s November 15, 2023, Order, [Docket No. 27].        
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                 

DATED: 2/15/2024                   s/Patrick J. Schiltz________________   
At Minneapolis, Minnesota          Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge        
                              United States District Court           

1 Unless the Court specifically orders otherwise, a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) is considered to be a dismissal 
with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has cautioned against dismissing 
a claim with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) unless there has been “willful disobedience of a court order or continued 
or persistent failure to prosecute a complaint.” Given v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 1984). 
Instead,  a  court  should  “consider  whether  a  less  severe  sanction  could  remedy  the  effect  of  the  litigant’s 
transgressions.” Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 

 (8th Cir. 2000). This is not to say that the Court must 
find that the litigant “acted in bad faith, but requires ‘only that he acted intentionally as opposed to accidentally or 
involuntarily.’” Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 

 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Rodgers v. Univ. of Missouri, 

, 1219 (8th Cir. 1998)). However, neither prior warning nor admonition to a litigant is required before 
a Court may dismiss said litigant’s action sua sponte. Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 

 (8th Cir. 2000); 
see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 

 (1962). In the present case, the Court cannot definitively conclude 
that Plaintiff’s conduct was willful disobedience. Thus, the Court recommends the less severe sanction of dismissal 
without prejudice.