Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Walls
Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Alexander Walls, Moshe Davis, Michael Wegner, Jeremy Riley, Davis Mueller, David Mathes, and City of Minneapolis
- Elsa Bullard
- 0:25-cv-01693
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Young v. Walls, Magistrate Judge Bullard recommends dismissing without prejudice the claims against defendant Michael Wegner because plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young failed to serve him within the required 90-day deadline and offered no adequate justification for the delay.
Plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young, whose claims against defendant Michael Wegner are recommended for dismissal without prejudice due to a missed service deadline. Defendant Michael Wegner is also directly affected. Other defendants in the case are not addressed by this recommendation.
What happened
In Young v. Walls (Case No. 25-CV-1693), plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young filed their lawsuit on April 24, 2025, naming several defendants including Michael Wegner. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs had 90 days—until July 23, 2025—to formally deliver (serve) a copy of the complaint and a court summons on each defendant. The court's records showed no evidence that Wegner had been served on time.
On August 28, 2025, the magistrate judge issued an order giving plaintiffs until September 29, 2025, to either show proof of timely service or explain a good reason why more time should be allowed. Plaintiffs responded on September 25, 2025, by filing an affidavit showing that Wegner was actually served on August 1, 2025—about a week after the deadline had already passed. Plaintiffs did not request an extension, and while emails attached to a court filing suggested Wegner may have been avoiding service, no supporting facts were provided to back up that claim.
Magistrate Judge Bullard found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either 'good cause' (a strong reason requiring a mandatory extension) or 'excusable neglect' (a looser standard allowing the court to grant a discretionary extension). Because neither standard was met, Judge Bullard recommends that the claims against defendant Michael Wegner be dismissed without prejudice, meaning plaintiffs are not permanently barred but would need to refile if they wish to pursue those claims. Parties have 14 days from receiving this recommendation to file written objections with the District Court.
The detailed version
Case
Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Alexander Walls, Moshe Davis, Michael Wegner, Jeremy Riley, Davis Mueller, David Mathes, and City of Minneapolis, Case No. 25-CV-1693 (PAM/EMB), United States District Court, District of Minnesota.
Judge
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard (issuing a Report and Recommendation; the presiding District Judge is identified by initials PAM).
Background
Plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young filed their complaint on April 24, 2025. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), plaintiffs must serve defendants within 90 days of filing, establishing a deadline of July 23, 2025. The court's docket contained no indication that defendant Michael Wegner had been served by that date.
Show-Cause Order
On August 28, 2025—approximately one month after the service deadline expired—Magistrate Judge Bullard entered a show-cause order directing plaintiffs to either provide proof of timely service on Wegner or demonstrate good cause for an extension, by September 29, 2025, or face a recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiffs' Response
On September 25, 2025, plaintiffs filed an affidavit of service indicating that Wegner was served on August 1, 2025—approximately one week after the July 23 deadline. Plaintiffs did not request an extension of time. Their memorandum filed in connection with defendant Walls's separate motion to dismiss did not address Wegner at all. Emails attached to a declaration in the record suggested Wegner was 'avoiding service,' but the court found no factual support for that contention in plaintiffs' filings.
Legal Standards Applied
- Mandatory extension (good cause): Under Rule 4(m), if a plaintiff shows good cause for failure to timely serve, the court must extend the service period. Plaintiffs made no such showing. - Permissive extension (excusable neglect): Even absent good cause, the court retains discretion to grant an extension based on excusable neglect. See Colasante v. Wells Fargo Corp., 81 Fed. Appx. 611, 612 (8th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs made no such showing either.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Bullard recommends that plaintiffs' claims against defendant Michael Wegner be dismissed without prejudice—meaning the dismissal does not permanently bar plaintiffs from refiling—pursuant to Rule 4(m). The recommendation cites Bullock v. United States, 160 F.3d 441, 442 (8th Cir. 1998), affirming dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m) in similar circumstances.
Procedural Next Steps
This is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge, not a final order. It is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party may file specific written objections within 14 days of being served a copy. Responses to objections are due within 14 days thereafter. The presiding District Judge will then review and act on the recommendation.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.