Suarez Villa v. Rardin

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Eduardo Suarez Villa,
Petitioner,
v.
Jared Rardin, Warden FMC-Rochester,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-cv-1258 (JWB/DJF)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
In a letter dated February 9, 2026, the Clerk of Court directed Petitioner Eduardo Suarez
Villa to pay the filing fee for this matter or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). (See ECF No. 2.) Mr. Suarez Villa was warned that if he did not pay the filing fee or
apply for IFP status within 15 days, this matter could be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) That
deadline has now passed, and Mr. Suarez Villa has not filed an IFP application or paid the filing
fee for this matter. In fact, Mr. Suarez Villa has not communicated with the Court about this case
at all since commencing this action. Consistent with the warning previously given to Mr. Suarez
Villa, the Court now recommends 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-01258-JWB-DJF Doc. 4 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 2

2
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Dated: March 10, 2026 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
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-01258-JWB-DJF Doc. 4 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 2