Cook v. United States of America
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:26-cv-00979
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Cook v. United States, Judge Bryan dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute after adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation with no objections filed.
David J. Cook, who had a case against the United States dismissed without prejudice for failing to move his case forward. Anyone who files a federal lawsuit and does not take steps to prosecute it may face dismissal on the same grounds.
What happened
In Cook v. United States of America (Case No. 26-CV-0979), David J. Cook filed an action against the United States, but the case never moved forward. United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation on March 4, 2026, concluding that the case should be dismissed without prejudice — meaning Cook could potentially refile — because Cook failed to prosecute, meaning he did not take the required steps to move his case forward.
Neither Cook nor the United States objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation within the allowed time period. When no party objects, the district court reviews the recommendation only for clear error — a limited review that looks for obvious mistakes rather than reconsidering every issue from scratch.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and adopted it in full. As a result, the case was dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows courts to dismiss cases when a plaintiff fails to pursue them. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the door to refiling is not automatically closed by this order.
The detailed version
- Cook v. United States of America · No. 0:26-cv-00979
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- June 30, 2026
Background
David J. Cook filed this action against the United States of America in the District of Minnesota. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the nature of the action beyond identifying Cook as the petitioner, a term courts often use in cases seeking court review of a prior decision or custody matter — though the opinion does not specify what kind of case this is.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated March 4, 2026, recommending that the Court dismiss the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Rule 41(b) authorizes a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute — that is, fails to take the procedural steps necessary to advance the case.
Objections and Standard of Review
Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the time permitted under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). When no timely objections are filed, the district court reviews a magistrate judge's R&R only for clear error, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Clear error review is a deferential standard; the court looks only for obvious mistakes rather than conducting a fresh, independent analysis of every legal question.
Ruling
Judge Bryan found no clear error in the R&R. The Court therefore adopted the R&R in full and dismissed the action without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the action, as the court used that specific term. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.