McNeil v. UnitedHealthcare Group Inc.
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-02489
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In McNeil v. UnitedHealthcare Group Inc., Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed plaintiff Alexander McNeil's complaint without prejudice because McNeil failed to actively pursue his case.
Plaintiff Alexander McNeil, whose lawsuit against UnitedHealthcare was dismissed (without prejudice) for failing to actively pursue his case. Parties in similar situations who do not respond to court recommendations may face the same outcome.
What happened
In McNeil v. UnitedHealthcare Group Inc. (Case No. 25-cv-2489), plaintiff Alexander McNeil filed a lawsuit against UnitedHealthcare in federal court in Minnesota. Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation on August 12, 2025, recommending that McNeil's case be thrown out because he had failed to take steps to move his case forward — a legal requirement known as the duty to prosecute. McNeil did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time.
Because McNeil did not object, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan was only required to review the Magistrate Judge's recommendation for obvious errors. The court found no such errors in the Magistrate Judge's reasoning.
Judge Bryan adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed McNeil's complaint without prejudice, meaning McNeil is not permanently barred from refiling — though any such refiling would need to comply with applicable rules and deadlines.
The detailed version
In McNeil v. UnitedHealthcare Group Inc., Civil No. 25-cv-2489 (JMB/SGE), United States District Court Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan for the District of Minnesota issued a Memorandum and Order on September 15, 2025 (the opinion itself is dated September 15, 2023, which appears to be a typographical error in the document), dismissing plaintiff Alexander McNeil's complaint without prejudice.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins had issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on August 12, 2025, recommending dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute — i.e., fails to take the necessary steps to move the litigation forward.
McNeil did not file objections to the R&R within the time permitted by District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and applicable local rules, when no specific objections are filed to an R&R, the district court reviews only for clear error, rather than conducting a full de novo (independent) review. Citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), Judge Bryan confirmed this standard and found no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge's reasoning.
The court adopted the R&R in full and ordered the matter dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice means the case is terminated but does not permanently bar McNeil from refiling, subject to applicable rules and statutes of limitations. Judgment was ordered entered accordingly.
Notably, the opinion contains what appears to be a date discrepancy: the caption and filing date indicate 2025, but the signature block reads 'September 15, 2023.'
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.