Goforth, et al. v. United States of America, et al.

Filing 94

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court OVERRULES plaintiff's objections (document no. 86) to certain orders dated July 14, 2011, in which Magistrate Judge VanDervort denied Goforth's motion to appoint counsel and granted the motion to stay of the United States. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 5/2/2012. (cc: Plaintiff, Pro Se and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
VIRGINIA ARLENE GOFORTH,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-0003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 27, 2011, plaintiff filed objections to certain
orders dated July 14, 2011, in which Magistrate Judge VanDervort
denied Goforth’s motion to appoint counsel and granted the motion
to stay of the United States.

For reasons expressed more fully

below, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
Under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
district judge is to consider any objections to an order of the
magistrate judge on a nondispositive matter and shall “modify or
set aside any part of the
contrary to law.”

The clearly erroneous standard is a

deferential standard.
(S.D.W. Va. 1994).

order that is clearly erroneous or is

Clark v. Milam, 847 F. Supp. 424, 425

“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous' when

although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on
the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction

1

that a mistake has been committed.”

Id. (citing United States v.

United States Gypsum, 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
Goforth’s motion to appoint counsel, as a nondispositive
matter, is reviewed under this clearly erroneous standard.
Hatfield v. Fox, Civ. Action No. 2:01-0594, 2002 WL 32366024, *1
(S.D.W. Va. Sept. 25, 2002).

A court abuses its discretion if it

fails to appoint counsel when exceptional circumstances exist.
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984).

The

existence of exceptional circumstances depends on the complexity
of the case and the ability of the prisoner to present it.

See

id.
As Magistrate Judge VanDervort noted, the factual and legal
issues presented in this case are not complex.

He further found

that plaintiff was capable of presenting her case to the court,
at least through dispositive motions.

The court agrees with the

magistrate judge and finds that there are no exceptional
circumstances which would justify the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, because Magistrate Judge VanDervort’s order is not
clearly erroneous or contrary to law, plaintiff’s objections are
OVERRULED.
As to the stay of proceedings pending resolution of
plaintiff’s appeal, that issue is moot given that the appeal has
been dismissed and the stay has been lifted.

2

In any event, the

court concludes that Magistrate Judge VanDervort’s order granting
a stay was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2012.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3