Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jeffrey L.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Judge Nicholas Grey; and Frank
Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-CV-04343 (ECT/ECW)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 10, 2025, Plaintiff Jeffrey L. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for
review of an unfavorable decision on his request for social security disability and
supplemental security income. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file an
application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Accordingly, the Clerk mailed Plaintiff a
letter advising him that he must either pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application
within fifteen days of the date of the letter, failing which it would be recommended that
this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. 2); see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b).
That deadline has now passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or submitted
an IFP application. In fact, Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court about this case
at all since commencing this action, and his mail has been returned as unclaimed with no
forwarding address. Accordingly, this Court now recommends that this action be
CASE 0:25-cv-04343-ECT-ECW Doc. 4 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 2

2
dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Henderson v.
Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 Fed. 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.”); see also Jones v. Raden, No. 18-CV-2968 (WMW/ECW), 2019 WL 4396168, at
*9 (D. Minn. July 24, 2019) (“This failure to apprise the Court of his new address
constitutes a failure to prosecute his claims, also warranting dismissal without
prejudice.”) (citations omitted), R. & R. adopted, 2019 WL 4394046 (D. Minn. Sept. 13,
2019).
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, and 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: December 18, 2025 	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 0:25-cv-04343-ECT-ECW Doc. 4 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 2