Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Procedural orderFiled Aug. 12, 2025

Davis v. Eischen

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:25-cv-01670
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Davis v. Eischen, Judge Katherine Menendez dismissed without prejudice the petition filed by Ronald Glen Davis after he failed to respond or take action in his case, adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

Who this affects

Ronald Glen Davis, a federal prisoner who had been transferred to FPC-Yankton, whose petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

What happened

In Davis v. Eischen (Case No. 25-cv-1670), Ronald Glen Davis filed a petition in federal court in Minnesota against B. Eischen. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on May 27, 2025, recommending that the case be dismissed because Davis had not taken the steps needed to move his case forward — a failure known legally as failure to prosecute. The court also noted that Davis had been transferred to a new federal facility (FPC-Yankton) and may not have received the recommendation, so the court mailed it to his new address on June 25, 2025.

Davis did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, even after the court sent it to his updated address. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews a Magistrate Judge's recommendation only for obvious or clear errors.

Judge Katherine Menendez reviewed the recommendation, found no clear error, and accepted it. The petition filed by Ronald Glen Davis was dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), meaning the dismissal does not permanently bar Davis from refiling, though any refiling would be subject to applicable rules and deadlines.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

This case involves a petition filed by Ronald Glen Davis (Petitioner) against B. Eischen (Respondent) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The nature of the underlying petition is not described in the order beyond it being docketed at ECF No. 1.

On May 27, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of Davis's petition without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes dismissal when a plaintiff or petitioner fails to prosecute (i.e., fails to take the procedural steps necessary to move a case forward).

Before acting on the R&R, the district court checked the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) website and determined that Davis had been transferred to FPC-Yankton, suggesting he likely had not received the R&R at his prior address. The court mailed the R&R to Davis's new address on June 25, 2025, giving him an opportunity to object. Davis did not file any objections, and the deadline to do so passed.

In the absence of timely objections, the standard of review for an R&R is 'clear error.' See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Judge Katherine Menendez reviewed the R&R under that standard, found no clear error, and accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

The court ordered: (1) Magistrate Judge Micko's May 27, 2025 R&R is ACCEPTED; and (2) Davis's Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice generally means the petitioner is not permanently barred from refiling, but any future filing would be subject to applicable procedural rules, statutes of limitations, and other requirements. The order was signed by United States District Judge Katherine Menendez on August 12, 2025.

Reviewer note from the AI+
The opinion does not identify the nature of Davis's underlying petition (e.g., whether it is a habeas corpus petition, a civil rights complaint, or something else). The 'habeas' tag was inferred from the case involving a federal prisoner and a respondent named 'B. Eischen' who appears to be a warden or prison official, which is a common pattern for habeas petitions, but this is not confirmed in the text. Reviewer should verify whether 'habeas' is the correct topic tag or whether it should be replaced or supplemented. Self-confidence is reduced accordingly.
The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.