Mays v. Holmes
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-03113
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Otis Mays v. Bernard Holmes, et al., Judge Menendez dismissed the case without prejudice — meaning Mays may refile — because Mays failed to pursue his own lawsuit.
Plaintiff Otis Mays, whose lawsuit against Bernard Holmes and other defendants has been dismissed without prejudice for failing to pursue his own case. Mays is not permanently barred from refiling.
What happened
In Otis Mays v. Bernard Holmes, et al. (No. 25-cv-3113), the plaintiff, Otis Mays, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against Bernard Holmes and others. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation on September 3, 2025, recommending that the case be thrown out because Mays failed to prosecute — meaning he did not take the steps necessary to move his own case forward.
Mays did not file any objection to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Under court rules, when a party does not object to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court reviews it only to check for clear error — a more limited review than if objections had been filed. The court found no clear error in the recommendation.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez accepted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but Mays is not permanently barred from filing again if he chooses to do so.
The detailed version
This is a brief procedural order from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff Otis Mays filed suit against Bernard Holmes and others (the specific claims against the defendants are not described in this order). The case was assigned docket number 25-cv-3113.
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on September 3, 2025, recommending dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute — a ground for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a court to dismiss a case when the plaintiff fails to take steps to move the litigation forward.
Plaintiff Mays did not file any objections to the R&R within the time permitted. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and the standard articulated in Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), when no objections are filed, the district court reviews the magistrate judge's recommendation only for clear error. The court cited Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) for this standard.
District Judge Katherine M. Menendez found no clear error and adopted the R&R in full. The court ordered the case dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the claims, as opposed to a dismissal with prejudice, which would permanently bar refiling. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly. The order was signed December 30, 2025.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.