Davis v. LeBlanc ( 2023 )

UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION DENNIS RAY DAVIS JR. CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-06238 VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR. JAMES LEBLANC MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Dennis Ray Davis’s (“Davis”) Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 6). On May 12, 2023, Magistrate Judge Hornsby denied Davis’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. See Record Document 5. Davis now appeals the denial of the motion, although the grounds for such appeal are unclear. See Record Document 6. For the reasons set forth below, the Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 6) is DENIED, and Magistrate Judge Hornsby’s Order (Record Document 5) of May 12, 2023, is AFFIRMED. The decision by Magistrate Judge Hornsby to deny Davis’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is a non-dispositive matter. This action is not listed in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as one of the dispositive motions that a magistrate judge may not conclusively decide. An order on a non-dispositive matter from the magistrate judge must be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) & Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). The Court will review the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions de novo and will review his factual findings for clear error. See Bedingfield v. Deen, No. 09-369, 2011 WL 1044397, at *1 (W.D. La. Mar. 18, 2011). Davis’s Motion to Appoint Counsel was filed on December 27, 2022, as part of Davis’s Complaint. See Record Document 1. Magistrate Judge Hornsby denied Davis’s motion because Davis failed to show exceptional circumstances, a necessary prerequisite to the granting of such a motion. See Record Document 5. In his appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s order, Davis did not provide any argument, either for the appeal itself or for the underlying Motion to Appoint Counsel. See Record Document 6. Without any showing of exceptional circumstances or any demonstration of error by the Magistrate Judge in the appeal, Davis has failed to persuade this Court to reverse the Magistrate Judge’s order. This Court's own review of the record and the instant appeal do not evidence that Magistrate Judge Hornsby’s denial of Davis’s motion was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Thus, the Order denying the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Record Document 5) is AFFIRMED, and Davis’s appeal (Record Document 6) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this the 7th day of June, 2023. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT