UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6072
HECTOR EDGARDO RUIZ ZUNIGA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM EFFLER; SHANE VARNEY; MICHAEL SUTTON; JULIAN CARR;
LAWRENCE THOMAS DIXON,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOSEPH CRAVEN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-ct-03177-BO)
Submitted: June 7, 2012 Decided: June 21, 2012
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hector Edgardo Ruiz Zuniga, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Gregory Wenzl Brown, Amy Holbrook Hopkins, BROWN LAW, LLP,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Hector Edgardo Ruiz Zuniga appeals the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint
without prejudice. Zuniga contends that the district court
abused its discretion by denying his motion for appointment of
counsel and by failing to provide him with Spanish translations
of court documents.
In civil cases such as this one, we review an order
denying appointment of counsel for an abuse of discretion. See
Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987).
Appointment of counsel is proper “[i]f it is apparent to the
district court that a pro se litigant has a colorable claim but
lacks the capacity to present it” or some other exceptional
circumstance is present. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1153
(4th Cir. 1978). We do not find that the district court abused
its discretion in this regard. Nothing in Zuniga’s complaint or
in his abbreviated motion for appointment of counsel would have
made it apparent to the district court that he possessed a
colorable claim but lacked the capacity to present it. Nor do
we find that the district court committed error by failing to
translate court documents into Spanish for Zuniga. Prior to his
notice of appeal, Zuniga never informed the district court that
he could not read the English language. Moreover, the court had
no affirmative duty to provide Zuniga with translations of court
3
filings. Contrary to Zuniga’s appellate assertions, the
district court does not bear the burden to investigate the
impetus of a civil plaintiff’s silence where the plaintiff
failed to communicate with the court for over a year and made no
response to two motions to dismiss and multiple notices from the
court.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4