-WLB Thompson v. Owens et al, No. 3:2010cv00062 - Document 52 (S.D. Ga. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 40 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting re 47 Report and Recommendations; denying 51 Motion to Appoint Counsel. As a result, a final judgment shall be Entered in favor of Defendants and this civil action shall be Closed. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 3/29/12. (cmr)

Download PDF

-WLB Thompson v. Owens et al Doc. 52 ORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FILED ' S OiS1R CT COURT COUR 1 nv. FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORG 11Z MAR 29 ID 00 DUBLIN DIVISION CLERK MARK STEPHEN THOMPSON, "^(,G Plaintiff, CV 310-062 V. THOMAS GRAMIAK, et al., Defendants. ORDER After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which no objections have been filed. Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by assigning him to a work detail that exposed him to conditions that were restricted in his medical profile. (Doc. no. 1.) The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants' motion be granted and that Plaintiffs motion be denied. (Doc. no. 47.) Plaintiff requested, and was granted, an extension of time in which to object to the R&R. (Doc. nos. 49, 50.) However, in lieu of filing objections, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. no. 51.) This is Plaintiff fourth such motion in this case; the prior three were denied by the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. nos. 9, 35, 44.) Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint him counsel because he cannot afford to hire an attorney and prison officials only allow him limited time in the law library. (Doc. no. 51, pp. 1-2.) He also asserts that Dockets.Justia.com the issues in this case are complex and that an attorney is needed to help with the presentation of evidence and cross-examination at trial. (jçi) Because the instant motion is similar in substance to Plaintiffs previous motions requesting appointment of counsel, the same analysis provided by the Magistrate Judge in denying the previous motions applies here. As a general rule, there is no entitlement to appointed counsel in a civil rights case, such as this one, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (llthCir. 1992); Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1975). Rather, the appointment of counsel is a privilege justified only by exceptional circumstances. Dean, 951 F.2d at 1216. Here, Plaintiff fails to show that exceptional circumstances exist (e.g., that he brings a meritable claim of such complexity that counsel would materially assist in its presentation) tojustify the appointment of counsel. Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (1 lth Cir. 1996). Contrary to Plaintiffs assertions, this case involves straightforward Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims. Moreover, Plaintiff has shown himself capable of communicating with the Court and "presenting the essential merits of his ... position," which is a key consideration in determining whether the appointment of counsel is justified. Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (1 lth Cir. 1993). Plaintiff's concerns about presenting evidence and examining witnesses at trial are likewise insufficient to warrant appointment of counsel. Because Defendants have shown that they are entitled to summaryjudgment for the reasons set forth in the R&R, there will not be a trial in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's fourth motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Doc. no. 51.) As noted previously, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R, despite being granted an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, the R&R of the Magistrate 2 Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED (doc. no. 37), and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED (doc. no. 40). As a result, a final judgment shall be ENTERED in favor of Defendants, and this il action shall be CLOSED. SO ORDERED this day ofi2, Augusta, Ge UNITED STi')A fES DISTRICT JUD& 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.