Tillman:El v. U.S. Bank National Association
Delaneo-Nathaniel Tillman:El v. U.S. Bank National Association; Kayak Properties, Inc.; and John Doe 1–5
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-02811
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Delaneo-Nathaniel Tillman:El v. U.S. Bank National Association, Kayak Properties, Inc., and John Doe 1–5, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan dismissed the case without prejudice because plaintiff Delaneo-Nathaniel Tillman:El failed to serve the defendants with his Amended Complaint after being ordered to do so.
Plaintiff Delaneo-Nathaniel Tillman:El, who brought this lawsuit and whose case has been dismissed without prejudice. Defendants U.S. Bank National Association, Kayak Properties, Inc., and John Doe 1–5, who were never formally served.
What happened
In Delaneo-Nathaniel Tillman:El v. U.S. Bank National Association, Kayak Properties, Inc., and John Doe 1–5 (Case No. 25-CV-02811), plaintiff Delaneo-Nathaniel Tillman:El sued U.S. Bank National Association, Kayak Properties, Inc., and several unnamed defendants (listed as John Doe 1–5) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The specific claims in the Amended Complaint are not described in this order.
The case was dismissed because Tillman:El failed to take a basic required step: after filing his Amended Complaint, he never filed proof that he had formally delivered (served) copies of that complaint on the defendants. A magistrate judge — a judicial officer who assists the district court judge — had issued an order on January 6, 2026, giving Tillman:El twenty days to file that proof of service. He did not do so. The magistrate judge then issued a Report and Recommendation (a written suggestion to the district court judge) on February 3, 2026, recommending that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning the plaintiff stopped actively moving his case forward as required.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan reviewed the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. Because neither side objected to it within the allowed time, Judge Bryan reviewed it only for clear error, found none, and adopted the recommendation. On February 25, 2026, Judge Bryan dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning Tillman:El is not permanently barred from refiling his claims, though any refiling would be subject to applicable rules and deadlines.
The detailed version
Case
Delaneo-Nathaniel Tillman:El v. U.S. Bank National Association; Kayak Properties, Inc.; and John Doe 1–5, Case No. 25-CV-02811 (JMB/ECW), U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Judge
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan, United States District Court Judge. The underlying Report and Recommendation was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright.
Background
Plaintiff Delaneo-Nathaniel Tillman:El filed an Amended Complaint against U.S. Bank National Association, Kayak Properties, Inc., and John Doe defendants 1 through 5. The substantive allegations of the Amended Complaint are not discussed in this order.
Procedural History
On January 6, 2026, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued an order directing Tillman:El to file proof of service of the Amended Complaint on the defendants within twenty days. Tillman:El did not comply. On February 3, 2026, Magistrate Judge Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of the Amended Complaint for failure to prosecute under the applicable rules — meaning the plaintiff failed to take necessary steps to move his own case forward.
Standard of Review
When no party timely objects to an R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)). Here, neither party filed objections within the time allowed under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).
Ruling
Finding no clear error in the R&R, Judge Bryan adopted the R&R in full on February 25, 2026, and dismissed the action without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not permanently bar the plaintiff from refiling, but any future filing would be subject to applicable statutes of limitations, court rules, and other legal requirements.
Effect
The case is closed. Tillman:El's claims were not adjudicated on the merits; the case was dismissed solely because he failed to serve defendants and file proof of that service as ordered.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.