McNeil v. UnitedHealthcare Group Inc.
McNeil v. UnitedHealthcare Group Inc.
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Alexander McNeil, Civ. No. 25-cv-2489 (JMB/SGE) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER UnitedHealthcare Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins dated August 12, 2025. (Doc. No. 6.)
The R&R recommends that Plaintiff Alexander McNeil’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Mr. McNeil did not file any objections to the R&R and the time to do so has passed. D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
This Court must review do novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that a district court need only review unobjected to R&Rs for clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. No. 6) is ADOPTED; and 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
LET JUDGEMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: September 15, 2023 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Alexander McNeil, Civ. No. 25-cv-2489 (JMB/SGE) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER UnitedHealthcare Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins dated August 12, 2025. (Doc. No. 6.)
The R&R recommends that Plaintiff Alexander McNeil’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Mr. McNeil did not file any objections to the R&R and the time to do so has passed. D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
This Court must review do novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that a district court need only review unobjected to R&Rs for clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. No. 6) is ADOPTED; and 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
LET JUDGEMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: September 15, 2023 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.