Black v. Warden, Federal Correctional Institution

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Roland Antonio Black,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden, Federal Correctional Institution,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-cv-1805 (JMB/LIB)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon the routine
supervision of the cases that pend before the Court, pursuant to a general assignment made in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636.
In a letter dated March 10, 2026, the Clerk of Court directed petitioner Roland Antonio
Black to pay the filing fee for this matter or apply for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See Docket
No. 2. Petitioner was warned that if he did not pay the filing fee for this matter or apply for IFP
status within fifteen days, this matter could be dismissed without prejudice. 	See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b).
That deadline has now passed, and Petitioner has not submitted an IFP application or paid
the filing fee in this matter. 	In fact, Petitioner has not communicated with the Court about this
case at all since commencing this action. 	Accordingly, this Court now recommends, consistent
with the warning previously given to Petitioner, that this action be dismissed without prejudice
under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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.”).
CASE 0:26-cv-01805-JMB-LIB Doc. 4 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Finally, the Court notes that even if Petitioner had elected to prosecute this matter,
dismissal of this proceeding would have been recommended. 	Petitioner acknowledges in this
habeas petition that he did not complete the administrative remedy process made available by
prison officials for his claims. See Petition at 2 [Docket No. 1]. The federal habeas corpus statute
does not include an exhaustion requirement, see generally 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but courts have long
required prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies made available by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) before seeking habeas relief, see Mathena v. United States, 577 F.3d 943, 946
(8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069, 1069 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
Petitioner offers no good reason for having failed to complete the BOP’s administrative-review
process before seeking habeas corpus relief from a federal court. 	Had Petitioner elected to
prosecute this action—or, alternatively, should Petitioner submit the filing fee for this matter or an
IFP application before judgment is entered in this matter—it would be recommended that this
matter be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT this matter be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute or,
alternatively, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Dated: April 7, 2026 	s/Leo I. Brisbois
Hon. Leo I. Brisbois
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
CASE 0:26-cv-01805-JMB-LIB Doc. 4 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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-01805-JMB-LIB Doc. 4 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 3