Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:26-cv-01983
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Samuel Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services, Judge Bryan dismissed the action without prejudice and denied Cox’s application to proceed without paying fees as moot.
Samuel Cox’s action against Commissioner Department of Human Services, along with Cox’s pending application to proceed without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Samuel Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services, Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissing the action under a federal screening statute and treating Cox’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
Neither party objected to the recommendation by the deadline. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the recommendation, dismissed the action without prejudice, and denied the application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services · No. 0:26-cv-01983
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- May 8, 2026
Background
The matter came before the court on Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz’s April 3, 2026 Report and Recommendation. The recommendation proposed dismissing the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It also recommended treating as moot Samuel Cox’s pending application to proceed without paying filing fees.
Review of the Recommendation
Neither party filed a timely objection. Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It also denied Cox’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot. A dismissal without prejudice does not itself bar a later filing of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.