UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CRAIG JOSEPH EDGIN, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-14537 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

PATRICK R. DONAHUE, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

EXTENDING TIME IN WHICH TO FILE OBJECTIONS 

 On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff Craig Joseph Edgin filed a complaint in this Court 

against Defendant Patrick R. Donahue. ECF No. 1. Along with his complaint he filed an 

application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. ECF No. 2. Edgin’s case was, on 

December 19, 2014, referred for consideration of pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. 

Morris. ECF No. 4. Magistrate Judge Morris approved Edgin’s request to proceed in forma 

pauperis on December 23, 2014. ECF No. 5. After Edgin’s request was approved, Judge Morris 

subjected his case to the in forma pauperis screening procedure established by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to this procedure, Judge Morris recommended that Edgin’s complaint 

be dismissed sua sponte for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF No. 8. 

 Judge Morris issued her recommendation on December 31, 2014. ECF No. 8. As of that 

date, Edgin had 14 days to “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings 

and recommendations.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). The election not to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and 

1:14-cv-14537-TLL-PTM Doc # 11 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 37
- 2 - 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Edgin’s fourteen day period for filing 

objections has elapsed without any objections being filed. On January 12, 2015, however, within 

the objection period, Edgin filed a request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 10. In that 

request he indicates that he would like the Court to appoint an attorney on his behalf to aid in the 

prosecution of the instant case. Id. An attorney will not be appointed for Edgin. 

 “Indigent parties in civil cases have no constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney.” 

Snell v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., No. 08-CV-254, 2008 WL 956708, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 8, 

2008) (citing Abdur-Rahman v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995)). Counsel 

may be appointed for indigent parties in civil cases, but such an appointment is at the discretion 

of the Court. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1993). An attorney will be 

appointed for indigent parties in a civil suit only when justified by exceptional circumstances. Id. 

“In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, courts have examined the type of case 

and the abilities of the plaintiff to represent himself. This generally involves a determination of 

the complexity of the factual and legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). Importantly, “[a]ppointment of counsel . . . is not appropriate when a pro se 

litigant’s claims are frivolous, or when the chances of success are extremely slim.” Mars v. 

Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir. 1985). 

 While this order does not constitute a review of the merits of the magistrate judge’s 

recommendations, it should be noted that an independent review of Edgin’s case has already 

found it to be without merit. Nothing in Edgin’s application seeking appointment of counsel 

suggests, contrary to the magistrate judge’s recommendations, that the issues in this case are 

sufficiently complex that appointment of counsel is warranted. Edgin’s application will be 

denied. 

1:14-cv-14537-TLL-PTM Doc # 11 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 38
- 3 - 

 Because Edgin’s application, filed within the objections period, evinces a desire to further 

pursue his case, he will be granted an extension of time for the filing of objections to the 

December 31, 2014 report and recommendation. The fourteen day clock that began at the filing 

of the magistrate judge’s report will start anew when this order is served on Edgin. He will have 

fourteen days from the date of service to respond to the December 31, 2014 report with any 

objections he may have. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Edgin’s Request for Appointment of 

Counsel, ECF No. 10, is DENIED. 

 It is further ORDERED that the deadline in which Plaintiff Edgin may object to the 

report and recommendation, ECF No. 8, is ADJOURNED. Plaintiff Edgin must file any 

objections to the report and recommendation on or before February 2, 2015. 

Dated: January 15, 2015 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney of record herein by electronic means and upon Craig 

Joseph Edgin, at 618 W. Dawn Drive, Freelend, MI 48623 by first class 

U.S. mail on January 15, 2015. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cv-14537-TLL-PTM Doc # 11 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 39