Washington v. State of Minnesota et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Calvin Anthony Washington,
Plaintiff,
v.
State 	of 	Minnesota, 	Ramsey 	County,
Ramsey 	County Attorney’s 	Office, 	and
Prosecutors of Record in 62-CR-20-5757,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-CV-4662 (MJD/DLM)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
On February 10, 2026, this Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff Calvin Anthony
Washington to submit documentation in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) so that
the Court could determine this action’s initial partial filing fee. (See Doc. 6 at 2-3.) The
Court gave Mr. Washington 21 days (i.e., until March 3, 2026) to send this material, and
warned that failure to do so would lead the Court to recommend dismissing this case for
failure to prosecute. (See id.) That deadline has now passed, and Mr. Washington has not
submitted the necessary documentation. Therefore, the Court now recommends dismissing
this case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to
prosecute. See, e.g., 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 comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 	or 	any 	court 	order.”). 	Given 	this, 	the 	Court 	also 	recommends 	denying
CASE 0:25-cv-04662-MJD-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Mr. Washington’s pending application to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter (Doc. 5)
as moot.
RECOMMENDATION
Based 	on 	all 	of 	the 	files, 	records, 	and 	proceedings 	in 	this 	case, 	IT 	IS
RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	This 	action 	be 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE 	under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
2. 	Plaintiff Calvin Anthony Washington’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis in this matter (Doc. 5) be DENIED as moot.
Dated: March 11, 2026 	s/Douglas L. Micko_____________
DOUGLAS L. MICKO
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 Ap-
peals.
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 with a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served with 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-04662-MJD-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 2