[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-14488

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-20790-MGC

JAMES MELVIN CRAMER, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JORGE AGULIAR,

Medical Doctor,

WARDEN, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

JULIO POVEDA,

Doctor,

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 8, 2015)

Before HULL, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-14488 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Plaintiff James Melvin Cramer appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion for appointment of counsel. We find no error in that denial and affirm.

Cramer, an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections, suffers from

several maladies, including diabetes. Cramer refused insulin injections and 

received pills instead. He alleges a delay in receipt of his medication as the 

underlying factual basis for the action. Cramer requested appointment of counsel 

to prosecute his case and the magistrate judge summarily denied the request.

The parties disagree as to whether this Court should review for abuse of 

discretion or plain error. Defendants argue that Cramer failed to object to the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation and thus the plain error standard applies. 

Cramer argues that he did not receive adequate notice of the necessity to object to 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation. We need not resolve this matter because 

the district court did not err under any standard of review.

“A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel.” Bass v. 

Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). A court may appoint counsel to a 

plaintiff under exceptional circumstances but “has broad discretion in making this 

decision.” Id. Cramer argues that an application of the non-exhaustive factors 

from Neal v. Cassiday, 511 F. App’x 865 (11th Cir 2013), demonstrates that his 

case is indeed exceptional. Those four factors are “(1) the type and complexity of 

Case: 13-14488 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

the case, (2) whether the indigent is capable of adequately presenting his case, (3) 

whether the indigent is in a position to adequately investigate the case, and (4) 

whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as to 

require skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross-examination.” Id. at 865-

66.

Even applying the Neal factors as Cramer suggests, the Court can find no 

error in the denial of appointment of counsel. Cramer’s brief contains a concession 

that he was able to locate addresses of witnesses, so he has proved to be in a 

position to investigate his case. Unlike the circumstances of Neal in which the 

plaintiff actually lost at trial, here the district court dismissed or granted summary 

judgment to all Defendants, so no cross-examination of witnesses was necessary. 

Finally, although Cramer alleges that he lacks focus, he produced cogent filings for 

the district court, including the motion to appoint counsel.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-14488 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 3 of 3