Where an inmate challenged the dismissal of his claims, adverse summary judgment and the denial of his request for appointed counsel, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for appointment of counsel because pro se litigants have no right to appointed counsel, and the court properly dismissed certain defendants because the inmate did not allege facts indicating their personal involvement, and the judgment is affirmed because the court properly granted summary judgment as to the defendant’s failure to protect claims against the remaining defendants based on qualified immunity.
Judgment is affirmed.
Dunahue v. Kelley (MLW No. 74442/Case No. 19-1691 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.