Filed: Jun. 30, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6232 COREY COLES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. D.B. EVERETT; GENE JOHNSON; JOHN JABE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00493-RGD-FBS) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 30, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Coles, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6232 COREY COLES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. D.B. EVERETT; GENE JOHNSON; JOHN JABE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00493-RGD-FBS) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 30, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Coles, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6232 COREY COLES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. D.B. EVERETT; GENE JOHNSON; JOHN JABE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00493-RGD-FBS) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 30, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Coles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corey Coles appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice Coles’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Coles v. Everett, No. 2:08-cv-00493-RGD-FBS (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2009). We deny Coles’s motion to appoint 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 2
