Hamilton v. Givan et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 1/26/2017. (PSM)

FILED
2017 Jan-26 PM 02:48
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEXTER HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARREN GIVAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-02230-LSC-TMP

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report on December 13, 2016, recommending
this action be dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 17). The plaintiff has responded to
the motion by submitting a document titled “Motion to Object,” in which he
appears to seek appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, but
includes no direct objections to the magistrate judge’s findings. (Doc. 19). The
code section cited by the plaintiff refers to appointment of counsel for persons
charged with federal crimes, and has no bearing on the plaintiff’s civil claims
here.1

1

The plaintiff previously filed a motion for appointment of counsel on September 6, 2016. (Doc.
14). However, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d
1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). Appointment of counsel in a civil action is justified only by

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation and the plaintiff’s response
thereto, the magistrate judge’s report is hereby ADOPTED and the
recommendation is ACCEPTED. Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
A Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED on January 26, 2017.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704

exceptional circumstances, such as novel or complex litigation. Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088,
1096 (11th Cir. 1990). The plaintiff’s complaint presents neither novel nor complex issues, and
nothing in the motion shows that appointment of counsel is warranted. Accordingly, the motion
(doc. 14) is DENIED. .
2