REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

HILDY BOWBEER, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner Daniel TePoel commenced this action by filing petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In an order dated May 12, 2015, this Court noted that the claims raised in TePoel's habeas petition must be brought in a traditional civil complaint, not a habeas petition. (Order at 2 [Doc. No. 6] (citing Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 470 (8th Cir. 2014); Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) ("If the prisoner is not challenging the validity of his conviction or the length of his detention, such as loss of good time, then a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy.")).) This Court therefore ordered that, if TePoel wished to prosecute the claims brought in this litigation, he would be required to file a civil complaint and either pay the required filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis by no later than June 5, 2015, failing which it would be recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

That deadline has now passed, and TePoel has not filed a civil complaint, paid the required filing fee, or applied for in forma pauperis status. In fact, TePoel has not communicated with the Court about this case at all since commencing this action. It therefore appears that TePoel does not wish to pursue at this time the civil claims raised in his habeas petition. Accordingly, this Court now recommends, in accordance with the May 12, 2015, Order, that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.