In these consolidated matters, we affirmed, or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, all but one of the district court’s 1 rulings, that being the denial of Owens’s motion for substitute counsel in No. OS-1973. We remanded that aspect of the appeal for a fuller explanation by the district court of the basis of its decision to deny that motion. See Owens v. Severin, 293 Fed.Appx. 425 (8th Cir. 2008).

Having reviewed the district court’s promptly filed and fully explicated re *581 sponse to the remand, we conclude that the district court “exercised a reasoned and well-informed discretion” in denying the motion. See Slaughter v. City of Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we now affirm the denial of the motion for substitute counsel.