PAUL BORMAN, District Judge
Plaintiff Joseph N. Malouf, III, proceeding pro se, filed the Complaint in this matter on December 1, 2010 (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that his employment with Defendants was terminated as retaliation for his filing an EEOC complaint claiming that he was sexually harassed by a female supervisor. On December 3, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3). Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, filed on April 20, 2011 (Dkt. No. 19).
Plaintiff's Motion consists of two sentences, which state as follows:
The plaintiff in the above entitled matter hereby moves the court for an order appointing legal counsel to act on his behalf
The court has already approved the plaintiff's application to file the matter
in forma pauperis.
(Pl.'s Mot. 1-2).
Appointment of counsel in a civil case is only appropriate in exceptional cases with complex factual and legal issues. See Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993). No exceptional circumstances exist in this case. See Marshall v. Federal Exp. Corp., 12 Fed. Appx. 186, 188 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2000) (unpublished). Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is therefore DENIED. SO ORDERED.