Trischan v. Waseca
- Michael Davis
- 0:25-cv-04743
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Venetia Trischan v. FCI Waseca, Judge Michael J. Davis adopted a Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice — meaning it could potentially be refiled — because Trischan failed to prosecute (move forward with) her case.
Venetia Trischan, a pro se litigant who brought a case against federal prison facility FCI Waseca; the case is dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of refiling subject to legal deadlines.
What happened
In Venetia Trischan v. FCI Waseca (Civil File No. 25-4743), Venetia Trischan, representing herself, brought a case against FCI Waseca, a federal prison facility in Minnesota. United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation on January 27, 2026, recommending that the case be dismissed because Trischan had not taken the necessary steps to move her case forward.
Trischan did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews the recommendation only for clear error — a more limited review than it would otherwise conduct. The court found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Judge Michael J. Davis formally adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but does not permanently bar Trischan from attempting to bring her claims again in the future, subject to any applicable legal deadlines.
The detailed version
This case, Venetia Trischan v. FCI Waseca (Civil File No. 25-4743 (MJD/DJF)), was decided by United States District Judge Michael J. Davis of the District of Minnesota on February 19, 2026. Venetia Trischan, proceeding pro se (representing herself without an attorney), was the petitioner against FCI Waseca, a federal correctional institution.
The opinion itself is a short order adopting a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on January 27, 2026. The R&R recommended dismissal of the matter. Trischan filed no objections to the R&R. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no objections are filed to an R&R, the district court reviews only for clear error rather than conducting a de novo (fresh, independent) review.
Judge Davis found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Foster's R&R and adopted it in full. The case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute — meaning Trischan did not take the required steps to advance her case in court. A dismissal without prejudice does not permanently bar refiling, though any future filing would be subject to applicable statutes of limitations and other procedural requirements. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Note: The opinion does not describe the underlying nature of Trischan's claims against FCI Waseca, so no summary of the merits of those claims can be provided. The full substance of Magistrate Judge Foster's R&R is not included in this order.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.