McGee v. Bowles

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 95-10920 Conference Calendar __________________ SHAWN ERIC McGEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JIM BOWLES; JIM MILLS; JACK CRUMP; BRUCE R. SHERBERT, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CV-355-D - - - - - - - - - - April 23, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Shawn Eric McGee has appealed the district court's denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. A trial court is not required to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless exceptional circumstances exist. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). A district court has the discretion to appoint counsel for a * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. No. 95-10920 -2- plaintiff proceeding pro se if doing so would advance the proper administration of justice. Id. at 213. Although the district court did not specifically consider the four factors cataloged in Ulmer, the record negates the necessity for specific findings. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dept., 811 F.2d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 1986). A review of the record and McGee's appellate brief show that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel for him in this case. AFFIRMED.