Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_25-cv-00213-12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 25-213(DSD/DJF)
Michael Fiorito,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
Metropolitan Council,
Defendant.
This matter is before the court on the objections by plaintiff
Michael Fiorito to the April 13, 2026, orders of Magistrate Judge
Dulce J. Foster.
The district court will modify or set aside a magistrate
judge’s order on a nondispositive issue only if it is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(a). This is an “extremely
deferential” standard. Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F.
Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). “A finding is clearly
erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Chakales
v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1995)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “A decision is
contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant
CASE 0:25-cv-00213-MJD-DJF Doc. 175 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 2
2
statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross
& Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Fiorito argues that the magistrate judge erred in denying his
motion for the appointment of counsel and his motion to take more
depositions than he is currently allotted. The court finds no
basis on which to overturn either of the magistrate judge’s
decisions. They were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
the objections to the magistrate judge’s orders [ECF Nos. 173,
174] are overruled.
Dated: May 6, 2026
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
CASE 0:25-cv-00213-MJD-DJF Doc. 175 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 2