Hendricks v. Pride Indus.

ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

HORNSBY Judge

ORDER

ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is an appeal of the Magistrate Judge's order denying the Plaintiff, Monica Hendricks (“Hendricks”), appointed counsel. Record Document 27. Hendricks filed suit in federal court, asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. She filed a motion to appoint counsel, which was denied by Magistrate Judge Hornsby. Record Document 26. Hendricks has appealed that determination. A district court reviews orders of a Magistrate Judge on non-dispositive matters to determine whether any portion of the order is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).

“[T]he appointment of counsel in a civil case is a privilege and not a constitutional right.” Paskauskiene v. Alcor Petrolab, L.L.P., 527 Fed.Appx. 329, 333 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982)). As Magistrate Judge Hornsby's order correctly stated, Title VII allows for the appointment of counsel in circumstances that the court deems just. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). In the instant case, Magistrate Judge Hornsby reviewed the relevant factors for appointment of counsel and determined that this case did not warrant the appointment of counsel. 1

This Court has reviewed the record and Hendricks's response to the Magistrate Judge's order. While Hendricks disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions, she has presented no compelling reasons why the Magistrate Judge's conclusion was clear error or contrary to law, nor for that matter, has she demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge abused his discretion. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's order denying the appointment of counsel is AFFIRMED. 1 st day of March

THUS DONE AND SIGNED 1^st day of March, 2022. 2