Smith v. Minnesota Department of Corrections et al

Filing 7

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. (Written Opinion)Signed by Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 3/7/2025.(SDV)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jamal Lindsey Smith,

Case No. 24-CV-2880 (KMM/TNL)

Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
Minnesota Department of Corrections;
MCF-Rush City; Stenseth, Warden of
Rush City; Doctor John Doe #1;
Dentist Jane Doe #1; John/Jane Does
#1-20; Security Staff; Jennifer L.
Goerts; Geoffrey D. Shelton; Giles R.
LaBelle; Scott Y. Vang; Kenneth
Peterson; Gregory LeKatz; Daren A.
McGrath; Kavin E. Stewart; Timothy
R. Fryfogle; Rachel Orvis; Jessica L.
Lafountaine; Keith L. Zamora; Richard
G. Roesler; Ryan S. Spanier; Kerrick
Thelin; Gerald Basta; Trey R. Pate;
Shawn D. Booker; Tyler J. Piekarski;
and David Hopkins,
Defendants.

The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, dated
August 26, 2024. Judge Leung recommends dismissal of Plaintiff Jamal Lindsey
Smith’s Section 1983 lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Corrections and
various department staff for failure to prosecute. See ECF 5 (R&R) at 1–2. Specifically,
1

Judge Leung noted that Mr. Smith had previously been given a deadline to pay an
initial partial case filing fee of $34.42 but had not done so, nor had he communicated
with the Court about his case at all since filing his Complaint. Id. After the R&R
issued, Mr. Smith filed a response on September 5, 2024, acknowledging that he had
not paid the initial partial filing fee while stating that he could not afford to do so and
asking that the Court refrain from dismissing his case because he was optimistic that
his financial circumstances would improve within 30 days. See ECF 6-1. However,
since then, Mr. Smith has made no further communication and the $34.42 remains
unpaid.
The district court reviews de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific
objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Here, the Court will
construe Mr. Smith’s September 5 filing as a general objection to Judge Leung’s
recommendation for dismissal, and will therefore review the entire R&R de novo.
Having done so, the Court concludes that the R&R contains no error. The Court
further notes that the circumstances stated in the September 5 filing were described
by Mr. Smith as temporary, and yet the initial partial filing fee still has not been paid.
As such, the R&R is accepted and this matter is dismissed for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The dismissal is without prejudice, meaning that Mr. Smith may renew his
claims in federal court when he is prepared to prosecute the matter. But the Court
joins Judge Leung’s earlier warning to Mr. Smith that should he choose to once again
2

prosecute this action, he will need to file a complaint that alleges more specifically
how the named defendants themselves violated the law, specify whether the
defendants are being sued in their personal or official capacities, and consider Section
1983’s limitation on monetary damages against state actors in their official capacities.
See ECF 4 at 2, n.2. Failure to do so risks that any future complaint will not survive
preservice review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

Let judgment be entered accordingly.

Date: March 7, 2025

s/ Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge

3