Stanley Corbett, Jr. v. G. Branker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998813268-2] Originating case number: 5:10-ct-03093-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998906976]. Mailed to: Stanley Earl Corbett, Jr. and Lisa Y. Harper. [12-6262]

Appeal: 12-6262

Doc: 17

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6262

STANLEY EARL CORBETT, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
G. J. BRANKER; LIEUTENANT SHELTON; SERGEANT ANDINO; OFFICER
FOX; OFFICER MCMILLIAN; OFFICER LEE; OFFICER MCDANIELS;
OFFICER DEMING,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-ct-03093-BO)

Submitted:

July 26, 2012

Decided:

August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Earl Corbett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Lisa Yvette
Harper, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6262

Doc: 17

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Stanley
court’s

order

granting

Earl

denying

summary

Corbett,
his

judgment

Jr.,

motion
to

the

appeals

to

compel

defendants

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006).
We

review

for

abuse

of

the

district

discovery
on

his

and

claims

We affirm.

discretion

the

discovery prior to a grant of summary judgment.

denial

of

See Harrods

Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244 (4th Cir.
2002).

A trial court has wide discretion in managing pretrial

discovery, and an appellate court should not disturb its orders
absent a clear abuse of discretion.

Ardrey v. United Parcel

Serv., 798 F.2d 679, 682 (4th Cir. 1986).

We find no such abuse

of discretion here.
Because Corbett has failed to otherwise challenge the
substance of the district court’s order, we affirm the judgment
below and deny Corbett’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