Williams v. Champagne et al

Filing 29

ORDER AND REASONS denying 26 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Accordingly, the Mag Judges Order of 7/19/2011, asit pertains to the appointment of counsel is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/5/2011. (caa, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DAMON FLOYD WILLIAMS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 11-160

ST. CHARLES PARISH SHERIFF
GREG CHAMPAGNE, ET AL.

SECTION "F"

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s appeal of the magistrate
judge’s

ruling,

plaintiff’s

in

motion

which
for

the

the

magistrate

appointment

of

judge

denied

counsel.

the

For

the

following reasons, the magistrate judge’s ruling is AFFIRMED.
Background
This

case

arises

from

the

alleged

harassment

and

abuse

suffered by the plaintiff, Damon Williams, while incarcerated in
the

St. Charles Parish Correctional Center.
Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan denied the plaintiff’s motion

for appointment of counsel. Williams now appeals that ruling to
this Court.
I.
Standard of Review
A

magistrate

judge

is

afforded

broad

discretion

in

the

resolution of non-dispositive motions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). If a party objects to a magistrate
judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter, the Court will disturb
a magistrate’s ruling only when the ruling is “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also Castillo v.
1

Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995); Perles v. Kagy, 394 F.
Supp. 2d 68, 70 n.6 (D. D.C. 2005) (agreeing with other district
courts’ application of clearly erroneous standard to magistrate
judge’s denial of a motion to intervene).
II.
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
In an Order dated July 19, 2011, the plaintiff’s request for
counsel

was

denied.

Magistrate

Judge

Shushan

reasoned

that

Williams’ claims are neither factually nor legally complex, and
there is no indication that extensive discovery or investigation
will be required, or that a trial will require skills beyond the
plaintiff’s capabilities.
Although Williams contends otherwise, Magistrate Shushan’s
determination that “exceptional circumstances” are not present in
this case is not clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law.
Norton

v.

Dimazana,

122

F.3d

286,

293

(5th

Cir.

1997).

The

appointment of counsel in this case is not warranted.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Order of July 19, 2011, as
it

pertains

to

the

appointment

of

counsel

is

AFFIRMED.

plaintiff’s appeal is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 5, 2011.

______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

The