Coles v. McNeely

Fourth Circuit

Coles v. McNeely

465 F. App'x 246

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 14, 2012·No. No. 11-7197·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.

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

Pincite

465 F. App'x 246 (Coles v. McNeely) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related