Cook v. Ringham
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-03349
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Cook v. Ringham, Judge Tostrud dismissed Robert L. Cook, Sr.'s case without prejudice — meaning he may be able to refile — because he failed to take the steps necessary to move his case forward.
Robert L. Cook, Sr., the petitioner, whose case has been dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Parties involved in litigation before the Red Lake Courts may also have an interest.
What happened
In Cook v. Ringham, Robert L. Cook, Sr. filed a case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Mary Ringham of the Red Lake Courts. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on September 30, 2025, recommending that the case be dismissed because Cook had failed to prosecute it — meaning he had not taken the required steps to move the case forward. No party objected to that recommendation.
Because no objections were filed, Judge Eric C. Tostrud reviewed the Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a more limited form of review than if objections had been raised. The court found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Micko's analysis or recommendation.
Judge Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation in full and dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case. A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but does not permanently bar Cook from filing again.
The detailed version
This order, issued by United States District Judge Eric C. Tostrud of the District of Minnesota on October 31, 2025, resolves a matter docketed as File No. 25-cv-3349. The petitioner, Robert L. Cook, Sr., filed an action against respondent Mary Ringham of the Red Lake Courts.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on September 30, 2025 (ECF No. 3), recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and the Eighth Circuit's standard articulated in Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), when no party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error rather than conducting a de novo (fresh, independent) review.
Neither party filed objections to the R&R. Judge Tostrud found no clear error and accepted the R&R in its entirety. The court ordered the case dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute his case. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling, though any future filing would be subject to applicable statutes of limitations and other procedural requirements. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The opinion does not describe the underlying nature of Cook's claims or the specific conduct constituting the failure to prosecute, as those details would be contained in the R&R itself (ECF No. 3), which is not reproduced here.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.