CHARLES S. COODY
ORDER ON MOTION
On January 31, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 7). A review of the file in this case demonstrates that the plaintiff is capable of presenting the relevant facts and necessary elements of his claims to this court. In addition, the law applicable to such claims is not complex nor is the plaintiff required to cite any case law to this court in order to proceed on his claims. Thus, the record at this stage of the proceedings fails to demonstrate there are circumstances present herein, exceptional or otherwise, justifying appointment of counsel. See Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11 Cir. 1999); Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11 Cir. 1993); Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11 Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the interests of justice do not now warrant appointment of counsel, and it is
ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be and is hereby DENIED.
__________
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE