Allen v. 3M Company et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
IN RE BAIR HUGGER FORCED AIR 	MDL No. 15-md-2666 (JNE/DTS)
WARMING PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
This Document Relates to: 	REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Carole Allen,
v.
3M Company, et al.,
18-cv-254
Plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw in March 2026. Dkt. No. 15. The Court
granted the motion, directing Plaintiff to “either (1) file a notice of appearance for substitute
counsel; or (2) file a letter stating that she intends to proceed pro se (i.e., prosecute her
Bair Hugger case without a lawyer)” by April 24, 2026. Dkt. No. 19. Plaintiff failed to retain
counsel or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. Without any indication that Plaintiff
desires to prosecute her case, the Court recommends dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS THAT: this case be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Dated: May 7, 2026 	s/ David T. Schultz_________
DAVID T. SCHULTZ
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court. It is 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
CASE 0:18-cv-00254-JNE-DTS Doc. 21 Filed 05/07/26 Page 1 of 2

2
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). All
objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set for in LR 72.2(c).
CASE 0:18-cv-00254-JNE-DTS Doc. 21 Filed 05/07/26 Page 2 of 2