Allen v. City of Asheville et al

Filing 56

ORDER that the Pltf's 55 Objection to the Courts Order, which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration, is OVERRULED. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/01/2018. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00114-MR-DLH

BRADFORD ALLEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
CITY OF ASHEVILLE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Objection to the
Court’s Order [Doc. 55], which the Court construes as a motion for
reconsideration.
On April 19, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order dispensing
with the requirement of mediation and denying the Plaintiff’s request for
appointment of counsel. [Doc. 50]. The Plaintiff objected to this Order and
moved for the Magistrate Judge’s recusal. [Doc. 53]. The Court overruled
the Plaintiff’s Objections on May 15, 2018. [Doc. 54].
The Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order overruling
his Objections. For grounds, he asserts that he sought recusal of Magistrate
Judge Howell because he never consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by

a magistrate judge. Therefore, the Plaintiff argues, Magistrate Judge Howell
had no authority to enter the Order regarding mediation. [Doc. 55]. The
Plaintiff is mistaken. Under the Standing Orders of this Court and 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b), this Court has designated certain non-dispositive, pretrial matters
to be heard by the Magistrate Judge. The parties’ consent for the resolution
of such pretrial matters was simply not required. The Plaintiff’s Objection in
this regard is overruled.
The Plaintiff again objects to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of the
appointment of counsel. Specifically, he argues that, due to his current
incarceration and lack of counsel, he is unable to obtain “interrogation room
recordings” and “video footage” to support his claims. [Doc. 55].
Plaintiff’s Objection in this regard is also overruled.

The

As the Court has

previously noted, the Plaintiff does not have an absolute right to appointment
of counsel. [Doc. 30 at 2 (citing Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th
Cir. 1987)].

The Plaintiff’s alleged inability to access all potentially

discoverable information1 to support his claims does not constitute
“exceptional circumstances” justifying the appointment of counsel in this
case. Miller, 814 F.2d at 966.

1

It is not clear from the record whether such recordings and footage even exist.
2

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Objection to the
Court’s Order [Doc. 55], which the Court construes as a motion for
reconsideration, is OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: June 1, 2018

3