Yaritz v. Underwriter of Rush City/Moose Lake

Background

Harold Yaritz brought this action after issues arose in his efforts to proceed without paying court filing fees in two earlier proceedings. Yaritz alleged that a prison financial department incorrectly calculated the average balance and deposits in his prison trust account during the six months before those proceedings. He claimed that the error was intentional and malicious and delayed those cases. Yaritz also moved for appointment of counsel.

A magistrate judge issued an April 10, 2023 Report and Recommendation. Yaritz filed an objection.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it reviews the parts of a magistrate judge’s recommendation that are specifically challenged from the beginning, while objections that merely repeat earlier arguments or lack specificity are reviewed for clear error. The court also noted that it interprets objections liberally when a person is representing himself.

Even under that liberal interpretation, the court found that Yaritz’s objection did not clearly identify what part of the recommendation he challenged or provide a meaningful basis for the objection. The court said the objection instead moved away from the recommendation’s substance and discussed the need for better resources for inmates. The court concluded that the objection lacked substance and did not meaningfully address the issues raised in the recommendation.

Disposition

The court overruled Yaritz’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. It denied Yaritz’s application to proceed without paying court filing fees and denied his motion to appoint counsel. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice and directed that judgment be entered. The opinion does not provide the magistrate judge’s underlying reasons for recommending denial of the fee application and dismissal.