Little v. Conner Burton and Evan Tsai
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-04813
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Little v. Burton and Tsai, Judge Blackwell dismissed the case without prejudice — meaning the plaintiff may be able to refile — because plaintiff Jeremy H. Little failed to actively pursue his lawsuit.
Plaintiff Jeremy H. Little, whose lawsuit has been dismissed (without prejudice) for failure to prosecute. Defendants Conner Burton and Evan Tsai benefit from the dismissal, at least for now.
What happened
In Little v. Burton and Tsai (Case No. 25-4813), plaintiff Jeremy H. Little filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against defendants Conner Burton and Evan Tsai. The case did not move forward because Little failed to prosecute it — meaning he did not take the steps required to advance his claims through the court process.
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on January 29, 2026, recommending that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Little did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time period.
Because no objections were filed, Judge Jerry W. Blackwell reviewed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation only for obvious error, found none, and accepted it. On February 24, 2026, Judge Blackwell dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which means the dismissal does not permanently bar Little from refiling his claims, though any refiling would be subject to applicable rules and deadlines.
The detailed version
This is a short procedural order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff Jeremy H. Little filed suit against defendants Conner Burton and Evan Tsai under Civil Case No. 25-4813. The opinion does not describe the underlying substantive claims.
On January 29, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes dismissal when a plaintiff fails to take steps to move a case forward. The R&R is Document No. 4 in the docket.
Plaintiff Little did not file objections to the R&R within the time permitted. 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 timely objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for 'clear error' — a deferential standard that requires the court to accept the magistrate judge's findings unless they are plainly wrong.
District Judge Jerry W. Blackwell found no clear error, accepted the R&R, and on February 24, 2026, dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff is not permanently barred from refiling the claims, though any future filing would need to comply with applicable statutes of limitations and court rules. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Note: The opinion does not reveal what claims Little brought, what the defendants are alleged to have done, or why Little failed to prosecute the case.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.