Poole v. Carteret County Sheriff's Department

Fourth Circuit

Poole v. Carteret County Sheriff's Department

458 F. App'x 232

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 15, 2011

DocketNos. 11-6744, 11-7314

StatusPublished

This text of 458 F. App'x 232 (Poole v. Carteret County Sheriff's Department) 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

Poole v. Carteret County Sheriff's Department, 458 F. App'x 232 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Edward E. Poole appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous and denying his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Poole failed to state a claim that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Poole v. Carteret Cnty. Sheriffs Dep’t, No. 5:10-ct-03215-BO (E.D.N.C. May 10, 2011; July 15, 2011). We also deny Poole’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

In these consolidated appeals, Edward E. Poole appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous and denying his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Poole failed to state a claim that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Poole v. Carteret Cnty. Sheriffs Dep’t, No. 5:10-ct-03215-BO (E.D.N.C. May 10, 2011; July 15, 2011). We also deny Poole’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 F. App'x 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poole-v-carteret-county-sheriffs-department-ca4-2011.