Hubbard v. Duluth Township, The

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Michael Fitzgerald Hubbard, 	Case No. 25-cv-2477 (KMM/LIB)
Plaintiff,
v. 	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Duluth Township,
Defendant.
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon the
routine supervision of the cases that pend before the Court, pursuant to a general assignment
made in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636.
More than 90 days after Plaintiff initiated this action, Plaintiff had not provided proof of
service of a summons and a copy of the Complaint on Defendant. Accordingly, on March 2,
2026, the Court issued an Order, [Docket No. 15], notifying Plaintiff that the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure require him to demonstrate proof of service upon defendants “within 90 days
after the complaint is filed [or] the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff –
must dismiss the action without prejudice . . . or order that service be made within a specified
time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court directed Plaintiff to provide proof of service or
demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve defendants. The Court forewarned
Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with this Court’s directive in the time permitted, the Court
would recommend dismissal of the present action for failure to effect proper service and failure
to prosecute. (Order [Docket No. 15]).
CASE 0:25-cv-02477-KMM-LIB Doc. 16 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The time for Plaintiff to provide proof of service or demonstrate good cause for an
extension of time to serve defendant has expired, and Plaintiff has neither provided proof of
service nor articulated good cause as to why the Court should grant him an extension of time to
do so. In fact, since the Court issued its March 2, 2026, Order Plaintiff has not had any
communication with the Court.
Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to abide by the terms of the Court’s
March 2, 2026, Order. [Docket No. 15]. Plaintiff has failed to offer any explanation as to why he
failed to comply with the Court’s March 2, 2026, Order. Indeed, Plaintiff has failed to respond in
any manner to the Court’s March 2, 2026, Order.
Because the Court previously forewarned Plaintiff of the potential consequences of
failing to abide by the Court’s Order, the Court now recommends that this action be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s March 2, 2026, Order, [Docket No. 15];
for lack of prosecution; and for failure to effect proper service. See Widtfeldt v. Daugherty, 587
F. App’x 992 (8th Cir. 2014).
Therefore, based on the foregoing and all of the files, records and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT this action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
Dated: April 15, 2026 	s/Leo I. Brisbois
Hon. Leo I. Brisbois
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
N O T I C E
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.
CASE 0:25-cv-02477-KMM-LIB Doc. 16 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “A party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation within 14 days after being served
with a copy of the recommended disposition[.]” A party may respond to those objections within
14 days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses
must comply with the word or line limits set forth in LR 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cv-02477-KMM-LIB Doc. 16 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 3