Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council
- David Doty
- 0:25-cv-00213
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Michael Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council, Judge Doty overruled objections to orders denying appointed counsel and additional depositions.
Michael Fiorito’s requests for appointed counsel and additional depositions were affected; the court overruled his objections to their denial.
What happened
In Michael Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council, Michael Fiorito objected to two orders issued by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster.
Fiorito argued that Judge Foster wrongly denied his request for appointed counsel and his request to take more depositions than he was currently allowed. The district court reviewed those decisions under a deferential standard, asking whether they were clearly mistaken or contrary to law.
Judge David S. Doty found no basis to overturn either decision and overruled Fiorito’s objections.
The detailed version
- Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council · No. 0:25-cv-00213
- David Doty
- May 6, 2026
Background
The court considered Michael Fiorito’s objections to two April 13, 2026, orders by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster. Fiorito argued that Judge Foster erred by denying his motion for appointment of counsel and his motion to take more depositions than he was currently allotted.
Standard of Review
Because the challenged orders involved nondispositive issues, the district court could modify or set them aside only if they were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A decision is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court, after considering the evidence, is firmly convinced that a mistake was made. A decision is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant statutes, case law, or procedural rules.
Ruling
The court found no basis to overturn either of Judge Foster’s decisions. It held that the orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and ordered that Fiorito’s objections to the magistrate judge’s orders, identified as ECF Nos. 173 and 174, were overruled.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.