Collins v. Dyanna L. Street
Jordan Collins v. Dyanna L. Street, District Court Judge – Anoka County District Court
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-02870
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Collins v. Street, Judge Tostrud dismissed without prejudice Jordan Collins's petition and denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees, finding no clear error in the magistrate's report.
Individuals who file petitions in federal court in the District of Minnesota challenging state court proceedings, particularly those seeking to proceed without paying filing fees, and who face dismissal when a magistrate's recommendation goes unobjected to.
What happened
In Jordan Collins v. Dyanna L. Street, District Court Judge – Anoka County District Court (File No. 26-cv-2870), petitioner Jordan Collins filed a petition in federal court against an Anoka County District Court judge. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on July 20, 2026, recommending dismissal of the case. No party objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it only for clear error — meaning obvious mistakes — rather than conducting a more thorough review.
Because no objections were filed, the court applied a limited standard of review, examining the magistrate's report only to check for plain mistakes. The court found none.
Chief Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation in full. The case was dismissed without prejudice — meaning Collins may potentially refile — his two requests to proceed without paying the court's filing fees were denied, and the court ruled that no certificate (a document required to appeal certain types of cases) shall issue.
The detailed version
- Collins v. Dyanna L. Street · No. 0:26-cv-02870
- Eric Tostrud
- Aug. 17, 2026
Background
Petitioner Jordan Collins filed this case in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against Dyanna L. Street, identified as a District Court Judge for Anoka County District Court. The nature of the underlying petition is not described in this order beyond identifying the respondent and the procedural posture.
Collins also filed two applications to proceed without paying court filing fees (known as in forma pauperis, or IFP, status), docketed at ECF Nos. 6 and 9.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 20, 2026, recommending how the case should be resolved. The specific grounds for the magistrate's recommendation are not described in this order.
Neither party filed objections to the R&R. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (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 limited form of review than the de novo (fresh, independent) review that applies when objections are filed.
Ruling
Chief Judge Tostrud found no clear error in the R&R and accepted it. The court ordered the following:
- Dismissal without prejudice — The case is dismissed without prejudice, meaning Collins is not barred from refiling by this order alone.
- IFP applications denied — Collins's two applications to proceed without paying filing fees (ECF Nos. 6 and 9) are denied.
- No certificate of appealability — The court ruled that no certificate of appealability shall issue. A certificate of appealability is a document required in certain types of cases (commonly petitions challenging confinement or court orders) before a losing party may appeal to a higher court.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Notes
The opinion does not describe the specific legal claims or grounds raised in the petition, the basis for the magistrate's recommendation, or the reasons the IFP applications were denied. Those details would be found in Magistrate Judge Micko's R&R (ECF No. 10), which is not reproduced here.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.