Long v. D.O.C.-Department of Corrections-MN

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Reginald B. Long,                         No. 23-cv-3692 (KMM/LIB)       

         Plaintiff,                                                      

v.                                                                       

D.O.C. – Department of Corrections – MN,                                 
et al.,                                                                  

         Defendants.                                                     


    Reginald  B.  Long  filed  this  action  against  several  government  officials  on 
November 30, 2023. In his Complaint, Mr. Long indicated that he intended to amend his 
claims. On December 20, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued an 
Order observing that the Court was required to review Long’s Complaint pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 1915A, but that Judge Brisbois would refrain from doing so for thirty days to give 
Long a chance to file an amended complaint. Mr. Long did not file an amended complaint 
within thirty days of the December 20th Order, and on February 9, 2024, Judge Brisbois 
issued an Order explaining that although Long was incarcerated at the Ramsey County 
Correctional Facility when he commenced this action, he was no longer there and had failed 
to provide the Court with any means of contacting him. Judge Brisbois further observed 
that Long could not, as a practical matter, prosecute this action unless he provided the Court 
with updated contact information and required him to do so within thirty days of the 
February  9th  Order.  Judge  Brisbois  warned  that  failure  to  provide  updated  contact 
information  would  lead  to  a  recommendation  that  this  matter  be  dismissed  without 
prejudice for failure to prosecute.                                       
    Mr. Long failed to respond to the February 9th Order, and on March 13, 2024, Judge 

Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this action be 
dismissed for failure to prosecute based on the procedural history described above. R&R 
(Doc. 5). Importantly, Judge Brisbois explained the Court’s December 20th and February 
9th Orders were not mailed to Mr. Long because he had provided no address where the 
Court could reach him after previous mail from the Court had been returned undeliverable. 

R&R at 2 n.1. Judge Brisbois found that this did not change the conclusion that Mr. Long 
has failed to prosecute this action because it was Long’s obligation to keep the Court 
informed of his current contact information so that he could receive correspondence from 
the Court. Id. (citing Heiderscheid v. Dakota Cnty. Sheriff Off., No. 18-cv-1180 (JNE/LIB), 

, at *6 (D. Minn. July 22, 2020), report and recommendation adopted 

 (D. Minn. Aug. 31, 2020), aff’d, 

 (8th Cir. 2021); Aery 
v. Nohre, No. 20-cv-1958 (PJS/LIB), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. July 6, 2021) 
(collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted, 

 (D. Minn. Aug. 
4, 2021)). Because Mr. Long failed to comply with the deadline in the February 9th Order, 
failed to provide a means for the Court to send him correspondence, and appeared not to 

intend to prosecute the action, Judge Brisbois recommended this case be dismissed without 
prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. at 
2.                                                                        
    Because there have been no objections to the R&R, the Court reviews the R&R for 
clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 

, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 

 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). 

Based on the Court’s careful review of the R&R and the record in this proceeding, the 
Court agrees with Judge Brisbois’ conclusion that this matter should be dismissed without 
prejudice.                                                                
    Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Report and Recommendation 
(Doc. 5) is ACCEPTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for  

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.     

Date: May 7, 2024               s/Katherine Menendez                     
                                Katherine Menendez                       
                                United States District Judge             

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Reginald B. Long,                         No. 23-cv-3692 (KMM/LIB)       

         Plaintiff,                                                      

v.                                                                       

D.O.C. – Department of Corrections – MN,                                 
et al.,                                                                  

         Defendants.                                                     


    Reginald  B.  Long  filed  this  action  against  several  government  officials  on 
November 30, 2023. In his Complaint, Mr. Long indicated that he intended to amend his 
claims. On December 20, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued an 
Order observing that the Court was required to review Long’s Complaint pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 1915A, but that Judge Brisbois would refrain from doing so for thirty days to give 
Long a chance to file an amended complaint. Mr. Long did not file an amended complaint 
within thirty days of the December 20th Order, and on February 9, 2024, Judge Brisbois 
issued an Order explaining that although Long was incarcerated at the Ramsey County 
Correctional Facility when he commenced this action, he was no longer there and had failed 
to provide the Court with any means of contacting him. Judge Brisbois further observed 
that Long could not, as a practical matter, prosecute this action unless he provided the Court 
with updated contact information and required him to do so within thirty days of the 
February  9th  Order.  Judge  Brisbois  warned  that  failure  to  provide  updated  contact 
information  would  lead  to  a  recommendation  that  this  matter  be  dismissed  without 
prejudice for failure to prosecute.                                       
    Mr. Long failed to respond to the February 9th Order, and on March 13, 2024, Judge 

Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this action be 
dismissed for failure to prosecute based on the procedural history described above. R&R 
(Doc. 5). Importantly, Judge Brisbois explained the Court’s December 20th and February 
9th Orders were not mailed to Mr. Long because he had provided no address where the 
Court could reach him after previous mail from the Court had been returned undeliverable. 

R&R at 2 n.1. Judge Brisbois found that this did not change the conclusion that Mr. Long 
has failed to prosecute this action because it was Long’s obligation to keep the Court 
informed of his current contact information so that he could receive correspondence from 
the Court. Id. (citing Heiderscheid v. Dakota Cnty. Sheriff Off., No. 18-cv-1180 (JNE/LIB), 

, at *6 (D. Minn. July 22, 2020), report and recommendation adopted 

 (D. Minn. Aug. 31, 2020), aff’d, 

 (8th Cir. 2021); Aery 
v. Nohre, No. 20-cv-1958 (PJS/LIB), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. July 6, 2021) 
(collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted, 

 (D. Minn. Aug. 
4, 2021)). Because Mr. Long failed to comply with the deadline in the February 9th Order, 
failed to provide a means for the Court to send him correspondence, and appeared not to 

intend to prosecute the action, Judge Brisbois recommended this case be dismissed without 
prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. at 
2.                                                                        
    Because there have been no objections to the R&R, the Court reviews the R&R for 
clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 

, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 

 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). 

Based on the Court’s careful review of the R&R and the record in this proceeding, the 
Court agrees with Judge Brisbois’ conclusion that this matter should be dismissed without 
prejudice.                                                                
    Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Report and Recommendation 
(Doc. 5) is ACCEPTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for  

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.     

Date: May 7, 2024               s/Katherine Menendez                     
                                Katherine Menendez                       
                                United States District Judge