Hasan v. Gann

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 71 MOTION for Review re 68 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Ericka Hasan. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 4/14/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ERICKA HASAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMY GANN AND MICKIE RYNOR,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 3:14-cv-2404
Judge Trauger
Magistrate Judge Holmes

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The pro se plaintiff has filed a Motion for Review (Docket No. 71), objecting to the
magistrate judge’s Order denying her request to appoint counsel (Docket No. 68).
This is an objection to a ruling on a non-dispositive matter. As such, the district court
must review the objection and affirm the magistrate judge’s ruling, unless the movant
demonstrates that the ruling is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Rule 72(a) Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The “clearly erroneous” standard does not empower a reviewing court to
reverse a magistrate judge’s finding because it would have decided the matter differently.
Anderson v. Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). Instead, the standard is met
when, despite the existence of evidence to support the finding, the court, upon reviewing the
record in its entirety, “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 33 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
The court has reviewed the filings of this pro se plaintiff and agrees with the magistrate
judge that, despite her mental health condition, she has been able to present her position
adequately before the court. Therefore, “exceptional circumstances” do not exist, and the denial
of the appointment of counsel for her will not result in any fundamental unfairness to the

plaintiff. An additional ground for denying her request to appoint counsel is that she makes clear
that she “is not asking for appointment of attorney because she is indigent.” (Docket No. 71 at
2). Therefore, if the plaintiff is concerned about presenting her own case to the court, she should
retain counsel to represent her in this case.
For these reasons, the plaintiff’s Motion for Review (Docket No. 71) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
Enter this 14th day of April 2016.

________________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge