Oberg v. Target Corporation
- Michael Davis
- 0:19-cv-01481
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Oberg v. Target, Judge Davis dismissed the complaint for lack of prosecution and failure to follow a court order.
Marites Reyes Oberg’s complaint was dismissed; Target Corporation and Target Apple Valley were the defendants. Oberg’s motion to strike with prejudice was denied as moot.
What happened
Marites Reyes Oberg sued Target Corporation and Target Apple Valley and represented herself. She objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation in the case.
After reviewing the record, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s recommendation. The court also concluded that Oberg was not improperly denied a lawyer, noting that civil litigants generally do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel.
Judge Michael J. Davis dismissed Oberg’s complaint for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court’s March 27, 2020 order. The court denied Oberg’s motion to strike with prejudice as moot.
The detailed version
- Oberg v. Target Corporation · No. 0:19-cv-01481
- Michael Davis
- May 19, 2020
Background
Marites Reyes Oberg sued Target Corporation and Target Apple Valley. The opinion identifies Oberg as representing herself. The matter came before Judge Michael J. Davis on Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s April 23, 2020 Report and Recommendation. Oberg filed objections to that recommendation.
Court’s analysis
The court conducted a de novo review, meaning it independently reviewed the relevant record, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b). The court adopted Thorson’s Report and Recommendation. It also considered whether Oberg had been improperly denied appointed counsel. Citing the general rule that civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel, and considering the factors identified in the cited precedent, the court concluded that Oberg was not inappropriately denied counsel.
Ruling
The court ordered that:
- Thorson’s Report and Recommendation was adopted. - Oberg’s complaint was dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court’s March 27, 2020 order. - Oberg’s motion to strike with prejudice was denied as moot.
The opinion does not provide the underlying details of the March 27 order or explain the claims in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.