The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
18-7325•Roger Earl Coley v. State of North Carolina; Judge W. Russell Duke, Jr.
18-7325Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 27, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7325
ROGER EARL COLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; JUDGE W. RUSSELL DUKE, JR.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-ct-03109-D)
Submitted: December 20, 2018 Decided: December 27, 2018
Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Roger Earl Coley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
reconsideration of the order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action as frivolous.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). As Coley’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) relief, he has forfeited appellate review of that
decision. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). Although Coley
asserts that the district court should have appointed him counsel during the proceedings
below, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s failure to appoint counsel
sua sponte. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard of
review); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (requiring exceptional
circumstances to support appointment of counsel in civil cases), abrogated on other
grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).
Because we have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous, we dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.