Case: 11-41141 Document: 00512116928 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 17, 2013
No. 11-41141
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
LOUIS LEON WALTERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE;
HENRY PATTERSON, Sheriff, Liberty County Jail;
TIM NEW, Community Education Centers, Liberty County Jail;
MEDICAL STAFF, Liberty County Jail;
UNIDENTIFIED CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS,
Correction Officers Liberty County Jail,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
No. 1:10-CV-544
Case: 11-41141 Document: 00512116928 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2013
No. 11-41141
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Louis Walters, Texas prisoner # 1714211, filed the instant interlocutory
appeal of an order denying a motion for appointment of counsel in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 suit alleging that he was given inadequate medical care at the Liberty
County Jail. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying
the motion. The interlocutory order is immediately appealable. See Robbins v.
Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 413 (5th Cir. 1985).
Walters’s case, however, does not raise complex legal or factual issues.
Additionally, his pleadings indicate that he has the ability to present his case
adequately, and there is no indication that he would be unable to investigate
adequately. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Walters’s request for counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212, 213
(5th Cir. 1982). Because he has not shown that exceptional circumstances war-
rant the appointment of counsel, the motion is denied. See Cooper v. Sheriff,
Lubbock Cnty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991).
Walters also contends that the conditions of confinement were inhumane
because he was deprived of necessary medications and that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Because the district court has not
entered a final, appealable order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommenda-
tion dismissing those claims, this court does not have jurisdiction over them. See
Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004).
The order denying appointment of counsel is AFFIRMED. The motion for
appointment of counsel is DENIED. The appeal is DISMISSED in part.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
2