Janice Henderson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her complaint asserting various claims against her former employer, Cypress Media, Inc. The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Henderson’s complaint, see Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of dismissal for failure to state claim), and we additionally conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for appointment of counsel, see Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir.l996)(trial court has broad discretion to decide whether both plaintiff and court will benefit from appointment of counsel); Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 1992)(eivil litigant has no constitutional or statutory right to court-appointed attorney). We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.