Coles v. McNeely

465 F. App'x 246
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 14, 2012
DocketNo. 11-7197
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 465 F. App'x 246 (Coles v. McNeely) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coles v. McNeely, 465 F. App'x 246 (4th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Lee Coles appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Coles v. Mcneely, No. 3:11-ev-00130-REP, 2011 WL 3703117 (E.D.Va. Aug. 23, 2011). 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

Related

Goodman v. Moose
W.D. North Carolina, 2023
Harris v. Mack
W.D. North Carolina, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
465 F. App'x 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coles-v-mcneely-ca4-2012.