Ducasse v. King
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-00627
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Hiram Ducasse, Jr. v. Mark King, Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends dismissing the case without prejudice — meaning it could potentially be refiled — because plaintiff Hiram Ducasse, Jr. stopped participating in the lawsuit and never responded to the defendant's motion for summary judgment or multiple court orders.
Plaintiff Hiram Ducasse, Jr., who filed the lawsuit and whose case is recommended for dismissal due to his failure to participate in the litigation. Defendant Mark King, whose motion for summary judgment prompted the recommendation but which the court does not rule on substantively.
What happened
In Hiram Ducasse, Jr. v. Mark King (Case No. 24-CV-627), Hiram Ducasse, Jr. filed a lawsuit in February 2024 against defendant Mark King in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. After the defendant answered the complaint and the court set a schedule for the case, Ducasse essentially stopped participating — he has not engaged with the litigation since spring 2024.
Defendant Mark King filed a motion for summary judgment (a request that the court decide the case in his favor based on the existing record, without a trial) on October 25, 2025. The court issued three separate orders directing Ducasse to respond to that motion, but he never did. He has missed multiple court-ordered deadlines without explanation.
Because Ducasse failed to prosecute — meaning he stopped actively pursuing — his own lawsuit, Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on December 2, 2025, recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but does not permanently bar Ducasse from refiling. Because this is a recommendation from a magistrate judge rather than a final order, either party may file objections, and a district judge will have the final say.
The detailed version
Case: Hiram Ducasse, Jr. v. Mark King, No. 24-CV-627 (ECT/JFD), U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Report and Recommendation issued December 2, 2025, by United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty.
Background
Plaintiff Hiram Ducasse, Jr. filed this civil action in February 2024. There was an initial delay while the court determined Ducasse's eligibility for in forma pauperis status (permission to proceed without paying filing fees) and completed service on the defendant. Defendant Mark King filed an Answer on October 10, 2024. On October 24, 2024, the court issued a Scheduling Order setting a discovery deadline of June 23, 2025, a dispositive motions deadline of August 25, 2025, and a trial-ready date of December 23, 2025.
Defendant's Motion
King filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on October 25, 2025 (Dkt. No. 26). Summary judgment is a pretrial ruling that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no genuine dispute of material fact requiring a trial. Ducasse filed no response.
Plaintiff's Non-Participation
The court noted that Ducasse has not engaged with the litigation at all since the spring of 2024. The court issued three successive briefing orders directing Ducasse to respond — a September Briefing Order (Dkt. No. 35), an October Briefing Order (Dkt. No. 36), and a November Briefing Order (Dkt. No. 37). Ducasse complied with none of them.
Legal Basis for Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes a court to dismiss an action for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or court orders. The opinion cites Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), for this proposition.
Recommendation
The magistrate judge recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not permanently bar refiling, though applicable statutes of limitations could affect any future attempt to refile. Because this is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge, the parties have the right to file objections with the presiding district judge (Judge Eric C. Tostrud, based on the 'ECT' designation in the case number), who will make the final ruling.
Note
The opinion does not describe the underlying substantive claims Ducasse brought against King, so the nature of the dispute is unknown from this document alone.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.