Edgar Daniel Cuate Urzua v. Capital One Bank, N.A.
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:26-cv-02396
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Cuate Urzua v. Capital One Bank, Judge Blackwell dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff filed no objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Plaintiffs in federal court who do not actively pursue their lawsuits, as this ruling illustrates that failure to prosecute a case can result in dismissal even if the underlying claims have not been decided on their merits.
What happened
In Edgar Daniel Cuate Urzua v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 26-2396, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Minnesota against Capital One Bank. United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on May 29, 2026, recommending that the case be dismissed. The plaintiff did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time period.
When no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews it only for clear error — meaning obvious mistakes. Judge Jerry W. Blackwell reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error. The court then accepted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full.
Judge Blackwell ordered the case dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it — that is, fails to actively move the case forward. A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff is not permanently barred from refiling a lawsuit on the same claims, though other rules may still affect that ability.
The detailed version
- Edgar Daniel Cuate Urzua v. Capital One Bank, N.A. · No. 0:26-cv-02396
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- June 22, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Edgar Daniel Cuate Urzua filed this civil action against Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the nature of the dispute between the parties.
Magistrate Judge Proceedings
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on May 29, 2026, recommending dismissal of the action. The plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R within the time permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Standard of Review
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 R&R unless it identifies an obvious mistake. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) as authority for this standard.
Ruling
Judge Blackwell found no clear error in the R&R and accepted it. The court dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes dismissal for failure to prosecute — meaning the plaintiff failed to take the steps necessary to move the case forward. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
A dismissal without prejudice does not permanently bar refiling, but the opinion does not address any further procedural consequences.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.