Zambrano v. Warden, FCC Rochester

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jose Luis Bravo Zambrano,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden FMC Rochester,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-CV-01623 (MJD/ECW)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In a letter dated February 25, 2026, the Clerk of Court directed petitioner Jose Luis
Bravo Zambrano to pay the filing fee for this matter or to apply for in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status. (Dkt. 4.) Bravo Zambrano was warned that if he did not pay the filing fee
or submit an IFP application within 15 days, this matter could be dismissed without
prejudice. (See id.)
That deadline has now passed, and Bravo Zambrano has not paid the filing fee or
applied for IFP status. In fact, Bravo Zambrano 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 Bravo Zambrano, 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-01623-MJD-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 2

2
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, and on all of 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 25, 2026 	/s/ Elizabeth Cowan Wright
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT
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-01623-MJD-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 2