Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services
Samuel Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services, Jane/John Doe/Unknown Names
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-00932
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Samuel Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services, Judge Provinzino dismissed Samuel Cox's lawsuit without prejudice — meaning he may be able to refile — after finding that his complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and also denied his request for a court-appointed lawyer.
Pro se litigants (self-represented individuals) filing complaints without paying court fees in federal court, particularly those whose complaints are screened and dismissed before the opposing party is even served. Also relevant to anyone seeking court-appointed counsel in a civil case.
What happened
In Samuel Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services, Samuel Cox filed a federal lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner and unnamed defendants. Because Cox applied to proceed without paying court fees (a request called 'in forma pauperis'), federal law required the court to screen his complaint before allowing the case to move forward.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins reviewed the complaint and issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that Cox's complaint failed to state a legal claim on which relief could be granted, that his request for a court-appointed lawyer should be denied, and that his application to proceed without paying fees should be denied as moot. Cox did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allotted time.
Because no objections were filed, Judge Provinzino reviewed the Report and Recommendation only for obvious error, found none, and adopted it in full. The court dismissed Cox's complaint without prejudice — meaning Cox is not permanently barred from refiling — denied his request for appointed counsel, and denied his fee-waiver application as moot since the case was being dismissed.
The detailed version
Case: Samuel Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services, Jane/John Doe/Unknown Names, No. 26-cv-932 (LMP/SGE), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Order signed by United States District Judge Laura M. Provinzino on March 23, 2026.
Background
Plaintiff Samuel Cox filed a pro se complaint (a lawsuit filed without a lawyer) against the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services and various unnamed defendants. Cox also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a request to waive the court filing fee on the basis of inability to pay — and a separate motion requesting appointment of counsel.
Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
When a plaintiff seeks IFP status, federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the court to screen the complaint and dismiss it if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, among other grounds. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins for this initial screening.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) at ECF No. 8, concluding: (1) Cox's complaint should be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim; and (2) Cox's request for appointment of counsel should be denied. The R&R did not elaborate its reasoning in the text of this order; the underlying R&R would contain that reasoning.
No Objections Filed
Cox did not file objections to the R&R within the applicable period. Under Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error — a more deferential standard than the de novo (fresh, independent) review that would apply if objections had been filed.
Ruling
Judge Provinzino found no clear error and adopted the R&R in full. The court ordered: (1) the R&R is adopted; (2) Cox's complaint is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE under § 1915(e)(2)(B) — meaning Cox is not permanently barred from refiling a corrected complaint; (3) Cox's request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) is denied; and (4) Cox's IFP application (ECF No. 7) is denied as moot, since the dismissal of the case renders the fee-waiver request no longer relevant. Judgment is to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.