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 Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services, Judge Provinzino dismissed Samuel Cox's complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
People who file civil complaints while seeking to proceed without paying court fees (in forma pauperis), particularly those whose complaints may not sufficiently describe a legal claim, and who seek court-appointed counsel in civil cases.
What happened
In Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services, Samuel Cox filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services and unnamed defendants. A magistrate judge reviewed the case and issued a report recommending that Cox's complaint be thrown out because it failed to state a legal claim that could lead to relief, and that his request for a court-appointed lawyer be denied.
Cox did not file any objections to the magistrate judge's report. Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the report only for obvious errors and found none.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino adopted the magistrate judge's report in full. The court dismissed Cox's complaint without prejudice — meaning Cox may potentially refile — denied his request for an appointed lawyer, and denied his application to proceed without paying court fees as no longer necessary given the dismissal.
The detailed version
- Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services · No. 0:26-cv-00932
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Mar. 23, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Samuel Cox filed a complaint against the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services and unnamed defendants (identified in the caption as "Jane/John Doe/Unknown Names"). Cox also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a request to litigate without paying filing fees — and a separate request for the court to appoint him a lawyer at no cost.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins conducted a review of Cox's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a statute that requires courts to screen complaints filed by plaintiffs who seek to proceed without paying court fees. Under that statute, the court must dismiss a case if the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The magistrate judge concluded that Cox's complaint should be dismissed on that basis. The R&R (Report and Recommendation) also concluded that Cox's request for appointed counsel should be denied.
District Court Review and Ruling
Cox did not file any objections to the R&R. When a party fails to object, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error, citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Judge Provinzino found no error and adopted the R&R in full.
The court's specific rulings were:
- Complaint dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) — the "without prejudice" designation means Cox is not barred from refiling a corrected complaint.
- Request for appointment of counsel denied.
- Application to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying fees) denied as moot — because the case was dismissed, the IFP application no longer required a ruling on the merits.
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.