Raper v. MN. DOC OPH

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: September 25, 2025
• Docket: 0:25-cv-02675
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Jeremiah Christopher Raper No. 25-cv-2675 (KMM/DTS)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER MN DOC OPH, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of U.S. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz (Dkt. No. 7) recommending dismissal of Plaintiff Jeremiah Christopher Raper’s lawsuit for failure to prosecute. The Court adopts the R&R. On June 25, 2025, Mr. Raper initiated this action by filing a complaint and an Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Dkt. Nos. 1–2.) Upon review, Judge Schultz ordered Mr. Raper to pay an initial partial filing fee of $18.60 within 21 days of the issuance of the order, which would have been July 18, 2025.1 (Dkt. No. 7.) The order advised that failure to pay on time would result in the Court “consider[ing] the action abandoned and recommend[ing] dismissal without prejudice for lack of prosecution.” (Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).) As of July 28, 2025, when Judge Schultz issued his R&R, Mr. Raper had “neither paid the fee nor otherwise contacted the Court about the case.” (Dkt. No. 7.) The same is

1 Because Mr. Raper’s case is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, even if his application was granted, he must still pay the full filing fee, beginning with an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). true today. Therefore, the Court finds that the case should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim

against it.”); see also 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.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7) is ACCEPTED; and 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Let Judgment be entered accordingly.

Date: September 24, 2025 s/Katherine Menendez Katherine Menendez United States District Judge