Abdikarim v. Schnell et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Zakariya Abdikarim,
Plaintiff,
v.
Paul Schnell, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-2124 (ECT/DTS)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In an order dated April 3, 2026, this Court denied the application to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) of plaintiff Zakariya Abdikarim due to Abdikarim having accumulated
three strikes—in fact, more than three strikes—pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Dkt.
No. 3. Abdikarim was given 14 days to pay the filing fee for this matter and proceed as a
non-IFP litigant, failing which it would be recommended that 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 Abdikarim has not paid the filing fee for this
matter. In fact, Abdikarim 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 Abdikarim, that 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-02124-ECT-DTS Doc. 4 Filed 04/24/26 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 24, 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-02124-ECT-DTS Doc. 4 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 2