Mills v. Anoka County Jail
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-02347
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Mills v. Anoka County Jail, Sheila Larson, and Brad Wise, Judge Tostrud dismissed Plaintiff Shelley Jane Mills's complaint without prejudice — meaning she may be able to refile — because she failed to prosecute her case.
Plaintiff Shelley Jane Mills, whose federal lawsuit has been dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Defendants Anoka County Jail, Sheila Larson, and Brad Wise are not required to respond to or defend the current complaint.
What happened
In Mills v. Anoka County Jail, Sheila Larson, and Brad Wise (Case No. 25-cv-2347), Plaintiff Shelley Jane Mills filed a complaint in federal court in the District of Minnesota against Anoka County Jail, Sheila Larson, and Brad Wise. The case did not move forward, and a Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on October 28, 2025, recommending dismissal because Mills failed to prosecute — meaning she did not take the steps necessary to advance her lawsuit.
Neither Mills nor the defendants filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. When no objections are filed, the presiding judge reviews the recommendation only for clear error — a more deferential standard than a full review.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright's recommendation and accepted it in full. On November 25, 2025, Judge Tostrud ordered Mills's complaint dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but does not permanently bar Mills from filing a new lawsuit raising the same claims, subject to any applicable time limits.
The detailed version
This case, Mills v. Anoka County Jail, Sheila Larson, and Brad Wise, No. 25-cv-2347 (ECT/ECW), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff Shelley Jane Mills brought suit against Anoka County Jail, Sheila Larson, and Brad Wise, though the underlying substantive claims are not described in this order.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on October 28, 2025 (ECF No. 4), recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute. Failure to prosecute is a recognized ground for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), applied when a plaintiff does not diligently pursue the case — for example, by failing to respond to court orders, serve defendants, or otherwise advance the litigation. The opinion does not specify which particular conduct (or inaction) by Mills constituted failure to prosecute.
Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the allotted time. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error — a standard more deferential than de novo review.
District Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error, accepted the R&R in its entirety, and ordered Mills's complaint (ECF No. 1) dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not operate as a bar to refiling, though any refiled action would be subject to applicable statutes of limitations and other procedural requirements. Judgment was ordered entered accordingly on November 25, 2025.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.