Pitts v. Ramsey County et al

Filing 60

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung dated June 26, 2019 57 . 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Object to Findings and Recommendation 58 is OVERRULED and his Motion to Appoint Counsel 58 is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1(j) 49 is DENIED. 4. Plaintiff's requests for a hearing 55 and 56 are DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 7/30/2019. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

HERB PITTS,
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER
Civil File No. 17-4261 (MJD/TNL)

RAMSEY COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
Herb Pitts, pro se.

The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung dated June
26, 2019. Plaintiff Herb Pitts filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the
record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Leung dated June 26, 2019. Within Plaintiff’s objections, he again requests that
the Court appoint counsel. “In civil cases, there is no constitutional or statutory
right to appointed counsel.” Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). For

the reasons explained in the Court’s January 3, 2018 Order, Plaintiff’s request for
counsel is denied. [Docket No. 24] Further, Plaintiff’s case has been dismissed.
Most of the claims were dismissed without prejudice, so Plaintiff is not legally
barred from filing those same claims again. However, this case is closed. The
motion for reconsideration has been denied. There is no need for the
appointment of counsel in this case because this case has ended.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung dated June 26, 2019 [Docket No. 57].
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Object to Findings and Recommendation
[Docket No. 58] is OVERRULED and his Motion to Appoint
Counsel [Docket No. 58] is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1(j)
[Docket No. 49] is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s requests for a hearing [Docket Nos. 55-56] are
DENIED.

Dated: July 30, 2019

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court