Coil v. Peterkin

Fourth Circuit

Coil v. Peterkin

401 F. App'x 773

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 12, 2010·No. No. 09-8008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel L. Coil appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Coil v. Peterkin, No. 1:07-cv-00145-WO-WWD, 2009 WL 3247848 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2009). We deny Coil’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a stay. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel L. Coil appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Coil v. Peterkin, No. 1:07-cv-00145-WO-WWD, 2009 WL 3247848 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2009). We deny Coil’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a stay. 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.

Coil v. Peterkin, 401 F. App'x 773 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

401 F. App'x 773 (Coil v. Peterkin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related