Branson v. Cortrust Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Kelly Branson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Cortrust Bank,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-CV-00721 (JMB/ECW)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 26, 2026, Plaintiff Kelly Branson (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil Complaint
against Defendant Cortrust Bank related to a claimed violation of “Article 1 Section:
Right to Contract” and the “Fair Credit Act.” (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee
or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Accordingly, the Clerk mailed
Plaintiff a letter on January 27, 2026, advising them that they must either pay the filing
fee or submit an IFP application within fifteen days of the date of the letter, failing which
it would be recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. (Dkt. 5); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
That deadline has now passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or submitted
an IFP application. Accordingly, this Court now recommends that this action be
dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Henderson v.
Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 Fed. 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00721-JMB-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
to prosecute, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any court
order.”); see also Wewerka v. Roper, 431 F. App’x 517, 517 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)
(affirming dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) following a failure to pay
initial partial filing fee).
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, and the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Dated: March 16, 2026 	s/ Elizabeth Cowan Wright
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT
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 0:26-cv-00721-JMB-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 2