The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:18-CV-187-BO
THEORODE JUSTICE, )
Plaintiff, )
)
) ORDER
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, )
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES )
SECRETARY, and )
GRANVILLE COUNTY BOARD OF )
_ COMMISSIONERS, )
Defendants. )
.._.-,,,.This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs motions to participate in electronic filing
[DE 48], to appoint counsel [DE 49], and to amend the case caption [DE 54].
BACKGROUND RS
“Plaintiff brought this pro se action against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the North
Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, and the Granville County Board
of Commissioners, challenging the calculation of his Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
benefits, Plaihtit? s amended complaint voluntarily dismissed all claims against the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. [DE 27].
(Ve □□□ ee □□□ | pefe lenis Hing
Motion to Particip ate in Electronic Filing
Plaintiff moves to participate in electronic filing via CM/ECF., [DE 48]. Except for the
option of feceiving documents electronically, the Local Rules and the Electroni¢ Case Filing"
‘Administrative Policies and Procedutes Manual (“Policy Manual”) do not pértiit a pro'se
one SO gtiar □□ Pepa
plaintiff to participate in CM/ECF. See Policy Manual, Section V.A. Accordingly, plaintiff's”: □□ .
motion [DE 48] is denied .
Motion to Appoint Counsel . ne
Plaintiff also moves to appoint counsel. [DE 49]. “[I]t is well settled that in civil actions:.
the appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases . : et Cook v. Bounds, :
518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), eg
abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Ia., 490
U.S. 296, 300 n.3 (1989). The Court does not find that exceptional circumstances are present in
‘this case. Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel [DE 49] is denied.
Motion ‘to Amend Caption
hig ainénded complaint, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against defendant.
US. Department of Agriculture. [DE 27; { 9]. Plaintiff moves to alter the caption of this case t6
teflect that change. [DE 54]. Plaintiff's motion is [DE 54] is granted. The U.S. Department of”
Agriculture is terminated as a defendant in this case. re
an CONCLUSION | es
"“Blaintif?s motions to participate in electronic filing [DE 48] and to appoint counsel [DE
49] aie DENIED. Plaintif?’s motion to amend the case caption [DE 54] is GRANTED. The Clerk
-is DIRECTED to terminate the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a defendant in this case.
SO ORDERED, this 7__ day of January, 2020.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE