Cox v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services
Samuel Cox v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services; Client Placement Committee; Charles Fai; Paul Mayfield; Mariah McAndrew; 1C, Treatment Team; and Phil Olson
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-02564
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Cox v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services, Judge Provinzino dismissed Samuel Cox's complaint without prejudice and denied his motion for appointed counsel, finding no clear error in the magistrate judge's report.
People who file civil lawsuits without a lawyer and without paying court filing fees, whose cases may be screened and dismissed by the court before defendants are even served, particularly those seeking appointed counsel in civil (non-criminal) matters.
What happened
Samuel Cox filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services and several other named defendants. He also asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him and to allow him to proceed without paying court filing fees. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a report on June 3, 2026, recommending that Cox's case be dismissed and his request for a lawyer be denied.
Because no party objected to the magistrate judge's report within the required timeframe, the district court reviewed it only for clear error — a limited review that looks for obvious mistakes rather than reconsidering every issue from scratch. The court found no clear error in the report and accepted it in full.
In Cox v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services, Judge Laura M. Provinzino issued an order on July 1, 2026, adopting the magistrate judge's report in full. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice under a federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)) that allows courts to screen and dismiss cases filed by people seeking to proceed without paying fees. Cox's motion for appointed counsel was denied, and his application to proceed without paying fees was denied as moot, meaning it no longer needed to be decided once the case was dismissed.
The detailed version
- Cox v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services · No. 0:26-cv-02564
- Laura M. Provinzino
- July 1, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Samuel Cox filed a complaint against the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services, the Client Placement Committee, Charles Fai, Paul Mayfield, Mariah McAndrew, 1C Treatment Team, and Phil Olson. Along with his complaint, Cox filed an application to proceed in district court without prepayment of fees or costs — a procedure that allows litigants who cannot afford court fees to have the court waive those costs — and a motion asking the court to appoint counsel to represent him.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on June 3, 2026. The R&R recommended (1) denying Cox's motion for appointment of counsel, and (2) dismissing the action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires courts to dismiss cases filed by plaintiffs proceeding without prepayment of fees if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The opinion does not specify which ground under § 1915(e)(2)(B) the magistrate judge relied upon.
Standard of Review
No party objected to the R&R within the period allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). When no objections are filed, the district court reviews a magistrate judge's R&R only for clear error. Under this standard, the district court will adopt the R&R unless it identifies an obvious mistake. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), for this principle.
Ruling
Judge Provinzino found no clear error in the R&R and adopted it in full. The court issued four specific dispositions:
- The R&R is adopted in full.
- Cox's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied.
- The complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A dismissal without prejudice means Cox is not categorically barred from refiling, though any future filing would be subject to applicable rules and limitations.
- Cox's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs is denied as moot — meaning that because the case was dismissed, there was no longer any need to decide whether Cox qualified for fee-waiver status.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.