Jackson et al v. Sexe et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Chris Jackson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Michelle Sexe, Individual and Official
Capacities; Gary Tallefson, Individual
and Official Capacities; and Dept. of
Humn. Serv. of Minn.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-CV-2688-KMM-EMB
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
In an order dated December 10, 2025, this Court denied the motion of
plaintiff Chris Jackson for reconsideration of the earlier denial of his application to
proceed in forma pauperis. (See Dkt. No. No. 33.) The order gave Jackson until
January 6, 2026, to pay the $405.00 filing fee for this matter, failing which the
undersigned would recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to prosecute. (See id. at 2–3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).)
That deadline has now passed, and Jackson has not paid the filing fee for this
matter. Accordingly, the undersigned now recommends, consistent with the
warning previously given to Jackson, that this action be dismissed without
prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Henderson v. Renaissance
Grand Hotel, 267 F. App’x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (holding “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
CASE 0:25-cv-02688-KMM-EMB Doc. 34 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
order.”). Jackson’s pending motions for referral to a volunteer attorney assistance
program (Dkt. Nos. 8 & 17) may be denied as moot given the dismissal for failure to
prosecute.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, and on the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
2. The motions of plaintiff Chris Jackson to be referred for volunteer
attorney assistance (Dkt. Nos. 8 & 17] be DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated: January 13, 2026 /s/ Elsa M. Bullard_______________
Elsa M. Bullard
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-02688-KMM-EMB Doc. 34 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 2