UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Marvin James Turner, Case No. 25-cv-3996 (LMP/SGE) Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION State of Minnesota and County of Clay, Respondents.

On October 17, 2025, the Clerk of this Court sent Petitioner Marvin James Turner a letter stating that (1) the Court had not received the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”); (2) Turner had 15 days (i.e., until November 1, 2025) to submit either the fee or an application; and (3) if he failed to comply, his case “could be summarily dismissed without prejudice.” (Dkt. 2 at 1.) That deadline has passed, and Turner has not submitted the required fee or application. The Court therefore recommends dismissing this action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and, given this recommendation, denying Turner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Dkt. 1. See, e.g., Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App’x 496, 497 (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: 1. This action be DISMISSED under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

2. Petitioner Marvin James Turner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Cor- pus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Dkt. 1, be DENIED.

Dated: November 17, 2025 s/Shannon G. Elkins SHANNON G. ELKINS 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 Ap- peals.

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 objec- tions 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 Marvin James Turner, Case No. 25-cv-3996 (LMP/SGE) Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION State of Minnesota and County of Clay, Respondents.

On October 17, 2025, the Clerk of this Court sent Petitioner Marvin James Turner a letter stating that (1) the Court had not received the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”); (2) Turner had 15 days (i.e., until November 1, 2025) to submit either the fee or an application; and (3) if he failed to comply, his case “could be summarily dismissed without prejudice.” (Dkt. 2 at 1.) That deadline has passed, and Turner has not submitted the required fee or application. The Court therefore recommends dismissing this action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and, given this recommendation, denying Turner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Dkt. 1. See, e.g., Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App’x 496, 497 (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: 1. This action be DISMISSED under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

2. Petitioner Marvin James Turner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Cor- pus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Dkt. 1, be DENIED.

Dated: November 17, 2025 s/Shannon G. Elkins SHANNON G. ELKINS 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 Ap- peals.

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 objec- tions 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).