Winchester v. Kim
Edward Winchester, Jerod Peppers, and Adolph Lawrence v. Kim, Education Staff Member Kim; Dylan, Correctional Officer; Jillian Tanaka, Correctional Officer; Kim Fast, Correctional Officer; Hill, Correctional Officer; Roth, Sergeant; Northwest Regional Correctional Center, NWRCC; and Minnesota Department of Corrections, DOC
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:26-cv-00651
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Winchester v. Kim et al., Judge Blackwell dismissed the case without prejudice — meaning the plaintiffs may refile — because the plaintiffs failed to move their lawsuit forward.
The three named plaintiffs — Edward Winchester, Jerod Peppers, and Adolph Lawrence — who appear to be incarcerated individuals whose lawsuit against correctional officers and state correctional institutions was dismissed. The defendant correctional officers and institutions prevail for now, though the case could potentially be refiled.
What happened
In Winchester v. Kim et al. (Case No. 26-651), three plaintiffs — Edward Winchester, Jerod Peppers, and Adolph Lawrence — sued several correctional officers, staff members, the Northwest Regional Correctional Center, and the Minnesota Department of Corrections, apparently over events connected to their incarceration. The lawsuit never progressed: no party objected to a Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the case be thrown out for lack of action by the plaintiffs.
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation on March 3, 2026, advising that the case be dismissed because the plaintiffs had failed to prosecute — meaning they took no steps to advance the case. No plaintiff filed an objection to that recommendation within the allowed time period. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews the recommendation only for clear, obvious errors.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, found no clear error, and accepted it on March 25, 2026. The case was dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which means the plaintiffs are not permanently barred from refiling their claims, though the opinion does not address whether refiling would be timely or otherwise proper.
The detailed version
This order, issued by United States District Judge Jerry W. Blackwell of the District of Minnesota, accepts a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins and dismisses the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Background
Plaintiffs Edward Winchester, Jerod Peppers, and Adolph Lawrence — apparently inmates or former inmates — filed suit against multiple correctional facility defendants: Education Staff Member Kim, Correctional Officer Dylan, Correctional Officer Jillian Tanaka, Correctional Officer Kim Fast, Correctional Officer Hill, Sergeant Roth, the Northwest Regional Correctional Center (NWRCC), and the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC). The underlying claims are not described in this order.
Procedural Posture
Magistrate Judge Elkins issued an R&R on March 3, 2026 (Doc. No. 6), recommending dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute — meaning the plaintiffs took no meaningful steps to move the case forward. The R&R process allows parties to object within a set time; no objections were filed here. When no timely objections are filed, the district court's standard of review is limited to checking for 'clear error.' See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).
Ruling
Judge Blackwell found no clear error in the R&R and accepted it in full. The case was dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiffs from refiling; however, this order makes no representations about whether any future filing would be timely or successful.
Key limitation
The order itself is brief and does not describe the underlying facts, the specific claims alleged, the plaintiffs' circumstances, or the exact nature of what steps were or were not taken. The substance of the R&R (Doc. No. 6) would contain more detail about the basis for the failure-to-prosecute finding.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.