Wolfe v. Rynolds et al

Filing 456

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL: The court appoints Henry P. Wall, Esquire, to represent Plaintiff in this action. The outstanding motions filed in this case are deemed moot. The court will enter a new scheduling order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 11/20/2019. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
MICHAEL E. WOLFE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
NFN. RYNOLDS,
)
NFN. SHARP,
)
NFN ROGERS,
)
)
NFN McCULLOUGH,
)
NFN. RICHARDSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
____________________________________________)

C/A No. 4:18-1350-TMC-TER

ORDER

Within Plaintiff’s numerous motions, he has requested the court to appoint
certain attorneys to represent him. There is no right to appointed counsel in Section
1983 cases. Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1975). The court is granted the
power to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for an indigent in a civil action. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Smith v. Blackledge, 451 F.2d 1201 (4th Cir. 1971). However,
the appointment "should be allowed only in exceptional cases." Cook v. Bounds, 518
F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). At this time, the undersigned finds exceptional
circumstances in this case to warrant the appointment of counsel.
Therefore, the court appoints Henry P. Wall, Esquire, to represent Plaintiff in
this action. The outstanding motions filed in this case are deemed moot. The court will
enter a new scheduling order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge

November 20, 2019
Florence, South Carolina

2