Filed: Jun. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1209 LORENZO W. COATS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHAW UNIVERSITY; TALBERT O. SHAW; COLLIE COLEMAN; LILLIE BOYD; CHEESETTE STOVAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-96-376-BR) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1209 LORENZO W. COATS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHAW UNIVERSITY; TALBERT O. SHAW; COLLIE COLEMAN; LILLIE BOYD; CHEESETTE STOVAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-96-376-BR) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1209 LORENZO W. COATS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHAW UNIVERSITY; TALBERT O. SHAW; COLLIE COLEMAN; LILLIE BOYD; CHEESETTE STOVAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-96-376-BR) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo W. Coats, Appellant Pro Se. Cressie Hampton Thigpen, Jr., THIGPEN, BLUE, STEPHENS & FELLERS, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment for Appellee on Appellant's claims of employment discrim- ination and declining to exercise jurisdiction over Appellant's state law libel and slander claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Coats v. Shaw University, No. CA-96-376-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 1997). Addi- tionally, we deny Appellant's motion for sanctions. 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 2