Ducasse v. King
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-00627
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Hiram Ducasse, Jr. v. Mark King, Judge Tostrud accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice — meaning it can be refiled — because the plaintiff failed to pursue his own case.
Plaintiff Hiram Ducasse, Jr., whose lawsuit against Mark King has been dismissed without prejudice due to his failure to prosecute the case.
What happened
In Hiram Ducasse, Jr. v. Mark King, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, plaintiff Hiram Ducasse, Jr. brought a complaint against defendant Mark King. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty for pretrial purposes, and on December 2, 2025, Magistrate Judge Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the case should be dismissed because Ducasse failed to prosecute — meaning he did not take the steps necessary to move his own lawsuit forward.
Neither party objected to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation within the allowed time. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews the recommendation only for clear error, a lower level of scrutiny than a full review. The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis.
Judge Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation in full and ordered Ducasse's complaint dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but does not permanently bar Ducasse from filing a new lawsuit raising the same claims, subject to any applicable deadlines.
The detailed version
This order, issued December 30, 2025, by United States District Judge Eric C. Tostrud of the District of Minnesota, adopts a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on December 2, 2025 (ECF No. 38).
The underlying action is Hiram Ducasse, Jr. v. Mark King, File No. 24-cv-627. The complaint (ECF No. 1) was filed by plaintiff Hiram Ducasse, Jr. against defendant Mark King. The opinion does not describe the substantive claims in the complaint.
Magistrate Judge Docherty recommended dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute — a procedural ground under which a court may dismiss a case when the plaintiff fails to take steps necessary to advance the litigation. No party filed objections to the R&R. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (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 rather than conducting a de novo (fresh, independent) review.
Judge Tostrud found no clear error and accepted the R&R. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the dismissal does not operate as a final judgment on the merits and does not necessarily bar refiling, though applicable statutes of limitations or other deadlines could affect Ducasse's ability to do so. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.