Manship v. Trodden
This text of 273 F. App'x 247 (Manship v. Trodden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
James Renwick Manship, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * Manship v. Trodden, No. 1:07-cv-00772TSE-TCB, 2007 WL 3143559 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2007). 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.
Manship also complains that the district court did not specifically respond to his request for a court-appointed attorney. Although under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (2000), a court may request an attorney to represent an indigent party in a civil case, a court should do so only in exceptional circumstances. Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir.1975). The district court's determination that Man-ship did not present exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel was implicit in the dismissal of his complaint.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
273 F. App'x 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manship-v-trodden-ca4-2008.