Case No. 16-CV-2254 (JNE/LIB)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
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.
Plaintiff Elizabeth J. Paszko commenced this action by filing a Complaint alleging that she had been discriminated against by her former employer, defendant United States Postal Service. Paszko did not pay the required filing fee for this case, but instead filed an application seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). See Docket No. 2. In an Order dated July 25, 2016, this Court denied Paszko's IFP application and ordered her to pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action within 45 days, failing which it would be recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). That deadline was later extended to October 24, 2016. See Docket No. 7.
That deadline has now passed, and Paszko has not paid the required filing fee. Accordingly, this Court now recommends, in accordance with its prior Order, that this action be 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.").
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Dated: November 3, 2016
s/Leo I. Brisbois
Leo I. Brisbois
United States Magistrate Judge
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. LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in LR 72.2(c). Under Advisement Date: This Report and Recommendation will be considered under advisement 14 days from the date of its filing. If timely objections are filed, this Report and Recommendation will be considered under advisement from the earlier of: (1) 14 days after the objections are filed; or (2) from the date a timely response is filed.