Thompson v. Optum United Health Care

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tiffany Sherell Thompson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Optum United Health Care; United Health
Care Corporate Headquarters; Optum/United
Health Group,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-4251 (JMB/DJF)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Tiffany Sherell Thompson initiated this action by filing a Complaint in the United
District Court for the Southern District of New York along with an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) That court transferred the matter to this Court on October 28, 2025. (ECF
No. 3.) On November 7, 2025, the Court denied the application to proceed in forma pauperis and
directed Plaintiff to submit a new application or pay this action’s filing fee by December 1, 2025.
(ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff failed to follow the Court’s directive, and the Court extended the deadline to
December 23, 2025.1 (ECF No. 6.) The extended deadline has now passed, and Plaintiff has not
responded. The Court therefore recommends dismissing this action without prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See 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.”).
1 All the Court’s Orders have been mailed to the address listed in the Complaint, but all
mailings have been returned because the address is deficient.
CASE 0:25-cv-04251-JMB-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 2

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Dated: January 5, 2026 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
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 Appeals.
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 objections 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).
CASE 0:25-cv-04251-JMB-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2