THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH HARRIS, : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-1469 Petitioner, : (JUDGE MARIANI) : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) Vv. : JAUREGUI, et al., : Respondents. : yee ORDER AND NOW, THIS a DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020, upon review of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson's Report and Recommendation (“R&R) (Doc. 6) for clear error or manifest injustice, and review of Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 7 at 1) and Application to Proceed /n Forma Pauperis (Doc. 8), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein; 2. Based on the Court's adoption of the R&R and the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss this case without prejudice (Doc. 6 at 12), Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 7 at 1) is DENIED;

‘In a document filed on September 8, 2020, Petitioner raises no objections to the Report and Recommendation but requests that the Court assign him an attorney. (Doc. 7 at 1.) District courts have “broad discretion to determine whether appointment of counsel is warranted and the determination must be made on a case-by-case basis.” Tabron v. Grace,

(3d Cir. 1993). Tabron further advised that “[iJf it appears that an indigent plaintiff with a claim of arguable merit is incapable of presenting his or her case, serious consideration should be given to appointing counsel.” /d. at 156 (citations omitted).

3. Petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 8) is GRANTED for this

filing only; 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to DISMISS the Petition (Doc. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 5. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 2 - uy te Robert D. Mariant United States District Judge

Given the current procedural posture of this case, appointment of counsel is not warranted and further discussion of the issue is unnecessary.