Manship v. Trodden
Opinion
James Renwick Manship, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * Manship v. Trodden, No. 1:07-cv-00772TSE-TCB, 2007 WL 3143559 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Manship also complains that the district court did not specifically respond to his request for a court-appointed attorney. Although under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (2000), a court may request an attorney to represent an indigent party in a civil case, a court should do so only in exceptional circumstances. Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). The district court's determination that Man-ship did not present exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel was implicit in the dismissal of his complaint.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James Renwick MANSHIP, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Richard TRODDEN, Commonwealth Attorney; Officer Toomey, Arlington Police; M. Douglas Scott, Chief of Police; Beth Arthur, Sheriff; William Newman, Judge; Servants of the Citizens of Arlington County; David Brian Nolan, Lawyer (Not Licensed in Virginia); David Richard Prestige, Contractor; Jason McCandless, Defendants—Appellees
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Unpublished