Larson v. Dakota County Jail/Detention Facility
Richard A. Larson, Jr. v. Dakota County Jail/Detention Facility, Including the Psych Unit; Dakota County Sheriff’s Office; City of West St. Paul; West St. Paul Police Department; Officer Swanson; Erickson; Deputy Hood; John/Jane Does 1–10; and John/Jane Does 11–21
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-02085
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Larson v. Dakota County Jail, Judge Provinzino dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute after no party objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Plaintiffs who file civil lawsuits and then fail to take required steps to move their cases forward may have their cases dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). This order also affects anyone who has applied for a fee waiver in a case that is subsequently dismissed, as such applications will be denied as moot.
What happened
In Larson v. Dakota County Jail/Detention Facility et al., plaintiff Richard A. Larson, Jr. filed a lawsuit against Dakota County Jail, the Dakota County Sheriff's Office, the City of West St. Paul, the West St. Paul Police Department, and several named and unnamed officers and deputies. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on May 20, 2026, recommending that the case be thrown out because Larson failed to move his case forward — a legal ground known as failure to prosecute.
Because no party — including Larson himself — filed any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation within the time allowed by the court rules, the case was reviewed only for obvious mistakes (called "clear error" review), which is a more limited form of scrutiny than a full review of the merits. The presiding judge found no such obvious mistakes in the recommendation.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino adopted the Report and Recommendation in full on June 17, 2026. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), meaning Larson is not permanently barred from refiling, and his separate request to proceed without paying court fees was denied as moot — meaning it no longer needed to be decided once the case was dismissed.
The detailed version
- Larson v. Dakota County Jail/Detention Facility · No. 0:26-cv-02085
- Laura M. Provinzino
- June 17, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Richard A. Larson, Jr. filed a complaint against multiple defendants: Dakota County Jail/Detention Facility (including its psych unit), the Dakota County Sheriff's Office, the City of West St. Paul, the West St. Paul Police Department, Officer Swanson, Erickson, Deputy Hood, and two groups of unnamed John/Jane Doe defendants. The opinion does not describe the underlying substantive claims in the complaint.
Larson also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (commonly called an in forma pauperis application), which allows litigants who cannot afford court fees to have those fees waived.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
On May 20, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to diligently pursue it. The opinion does not detail what specific conduct or inaction by Larson led to this recommendation.
Standard of Review
When a magistrate judge issues an R&R and no party objects within the time allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), the district court reviews the R&R only for "clear error" — meaning it checks for obvious or apparent mistakes rather than conducting a full independent review. Here, no party filed any objection to the R&R, so the court applied this more deferential standard, citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).
Ruling
Judge Provinzino found no clear error in the R&R and adopted it in full. The court issued three specific orders:
- The R&R was adopted in full.
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice means Larson is not permanently barred from refiling the claims, though any refiling would be subject to applicable statutes of limitations and other procedural rules.
- The application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot — because the case was dismissed, there was no longer any proceeding for which the fee waiver would apply.
Notes
The opinion does not describe the underlying legal claims, the facts alleged in the complaint, or the specific conduct that prompted the failure-to-prosecute recommendation. The dismissal is procedural in nature; the court did not reach or decide the merits of any claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.