Smith v. Stenseth et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CARL DOUGLAS SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
LISA STENSETH, VICTOR
WANCHENA, ASHLEE BERTS,
JOSHUA BARNES, BRANDEN
TATUM, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-499 (LMP/DLM)
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 9, of
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff
Carl Douglas Smith’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The R&R also recommends denying Smith’s application to proceed in forma pauperis as
moot. ECF No. 6. No objections have been filed to the R&R in the time period permitted,
so it is therefore reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon,
73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Finding no clear error, and based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings in
the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The R&R (ECF No. 6) is ADOPTED;
2. 	Smith’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
CASE 0:26-cv-00499-LMP-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 2

2
3. 	Smith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as
moot.
Dated: March 17, 2026 	s/Laura M. Provinzino
Laura M. Provinzino
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00499-LMP-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 2