From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mickelson v. Holinka

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Feb 20, 2007
Civ. No. 06-995 (JNE/SRN) (D. Minn. Feb. 20, 2007)

Opinion

Civ. No. 06-995 (JNE/SRN).

February 20, 2007


ORDER


In a Report and Recommendation dated January 19, 2007, the Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. Plaintiff filed no objection but did file a motion to appoint counsel. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). To the extent that Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation in his motion, the Court rejects Plaintiff's arguments and adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court also denies Plaintiff's request for counsel. Plaintiff has no right to, and the circumstances of this case do not warrant, appointed counsel. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 10] is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Docket No. 21] is DENIED.
3. This case is DISMISSED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.


Summaries of

Mickelson v. Holinka

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Feb 20, 2007
Civ. No. 06-995 (JNE/SRN) (D. Minn. Feb. 20, 2007)
Case details for

Mickelson v. Holinka

Case Details

Full title:James Roy Mickelson, Plaintiff, v. Carol Holinka, Warden, and Michele…

Court:United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Feb 20, 2007

Citations

Civ. No. 06-995 (JNE/SRN) (D. Minn. Feb. 20, 2007)

Citing Cases

Perkins v. Daniels

(Id.) In addition, because the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause is directed at state action, it does…