Boateng v. Maurstad et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Eric Osei Boateng,
Plaintiff,
v.
Leigh Maurstad, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-1634 (LMP/DTS)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In an order dated March 4, 2026, this Court denied the application to proceed in
forma pauperis of plaintiff Eric Osei Boateng. See Dkt. No. 3. Boateng was given 14 days
to pay the filing fee for this matter, failing which, he was warned, the Court would
recommend this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See id.
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).
That deadline has now passed, and Boateng has not paid the filing fee for this
matter. In fact, Boateng has not communicated with the Court about this case at all since
commencing this action. Accordingly, the Court recommends 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) (“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-01634-LMP-DTS Doc. 4 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
THE COURT HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Dated: April 2, 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 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-01634-LMP-DTS Doc. 4 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 2