Mohamed A. Ali v. State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA MOHAMED A. ALI, Case No. 25-CV-3740 (JMB/JFD) Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION STATE OF MINNESOTA and MINNESOTA IT SERVICES, Defendants. In an Order dated September 25, 2025 (Dkt. No. 3), the Court denied Plaintiff Mohamed A. Ali’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. No. 2). The Order directed Mr. Ali to “file a new application supplying [necessary] financial information or, alternatively, . . . pay this action’s full filing fee.” (Dkt. No. 3 at 2.) The Court gave Mr. Ali until October 16, 2025, to do so, warning that failure to act would lead to a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Id.) That deadline has passed, and Mr. Ali has neither filed a new application nor submitted the fee. Indeed, the docket shows no communication from him at all since initiating this action. The Court therefore recommends dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute, consistent with its earlier Order. See, e.g., 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.”). RECOMMENDATION Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Dated: October 24, 2025 s/ John F. Docherty______________ JOHN F. DOCHERTY 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).