Spartz v. TeBrake

Background

Stephen George Spartz, proceeding without a lawyer, objected to Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz’s January 9, 2020, report and recommendation. The recommendation advised dismissing the case. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the recommendation’s specific reasoning.

Spartz’s objections largely repeated facts he believed supported his claims rather than directly responding to the recommendation. He also argued that the recommendation should have been delayed until Minnesota state-court proceedings concerning his request for an emergency conservator and counsel were completed.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Spartz’s argument about waiting for the state proceedings. It explained that the Minnesota statutes governing the appointment of an emergency conservator and counsel apply to proceedings in Minnesota state courts. The court further stated that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in federal civil cases. Therefore, the magistrate judge did not err by issuing the recommendation before the state-court matters were resolved.

The court reviewed the magistrate judge’s determination concerning the merits of Spartz’s claims under the required de novo standard, meaning the court independently reviewed the challenged issues. After reviewing the record, it found the report and recommendation well reasoned and correct.

Disposition

The court overruled Spartz’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety, denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, without paying the filing fee—and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered.