Mills v. Anoka County Jail
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-02347
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Mills v. Anoka County Jail, Sheila Larson, and Brad Wise, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommends that the case be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff Shelley Jane Mills failed to serve the defendants or respond to the court's prior order.
Plaintiff Shelley Jane Mills, who filed the lawsuit and whose case may be dismissed if the district court judge adopts this recommendation. The defendants — Anoka County Jail, Sheila Larson, and Brad Wise — have not yet been formally served and have not appeared in the case.
What happened
In Mills v. Anoka County Jail, Sheila Larson, and Brad Wise (Case No. 25-cv-02347), Shelley Jane Mills filed a lawsuit on June 5, 2025, but never served the defendants with the complaint and summons. Federal court rules require that defendants be served within 90 days of a complaint being filed, and that deadline passed without any action by Mills.
On September 29, 2025, the court gave Mills a final chance, ordering her to either file proof that she had served the defendants, notify defendants' attorneys to appear, apply for a legal default, or explain in writing why she had not done so — all within 20 days. Mills did none of these things.
Because Mills took no action in response to the court's warning, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued this Report and Recommendation on October 28, 2025, recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice — meaning Mills is not permanently barred from refiling, but this case would be closed. This recommendation must be reviewed and adopted by a district court judge before it becomes a final order. Mills has 14 days from receiving this recommendation to file written objections.
The detailed version
This is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright in the District of Minnesota in Mills v. Anoka County Jail, Sheila Larson, and Brad Wise, Case No. 25-cv-02347.
Background
Plaintiff Shelley Jane Mills filed her complaint on June 5, 2025. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a plaintiff must serve all defendants within 90 days of filing the complaint. If service is not completed in time, the court — on its own initiative (called 'sua sponte' in legal terminology, meaning without a party requesting it) or on motion — must dismiss the action without prejudice against the unserved defendant. The 90-day deadline passed without Mills filing any proof of service.
Prior Court Order
On September 29, 2025, the magistrate judge issued an order giving Mills 20 days to take one of four corrective steps: (1) file proof of service or a waiver of service on the court's electronic filing system; (2) notify defense counsel of the requirement to appear; (3) file an application for entry of default if defendants still had not responded; or (4) advise the court in writing of good cause for the inaction. Mills did not take any of these steps.
Legal Basis for Dismissal
The magistrate judge cited Rule 4(m) and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as Eighth Circuit precedent approving sua sponte dismissal for failure to serve, as long as the dismissal is without prejudice. Cited cases include Hoffmann v. United States, 21 F. App'x 528 (8th Cir. 2001), and Sterling v. United States, 985 F.2d 411 (8th Cir. 1993), which recognized district courts' inherent power to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Wright recommends that Mills's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice means Mills is not permanently barred from bringing her claims again, though practical and legal limitations such as statutes of limitations could still apply.
Procedural Next Steps
Because this is a Report and Recommendation — not a final order — it must be adopted by a district court judge to take effect. Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), Mills has 14 days from being served a copy of this recommendation to file written objections. The opposing party then has 14 days to respond to any objections. The Report and Recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at this stage.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.