Thurston v. Louisa Cty School Bd ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-1521
    LEROY THURSTON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LOUISA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (CA-97-109-3-C)
    Submitted:   August 24, 1999                 Decided:   October 22, 1999
    Before WIDENER, ERVIN,* and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Leroy Thurston, Appellant Pro Se.     David Zev Izakowitz, Donald
    Dixon Long, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZELGROVE, Charlottesville, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    *
    Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case
    but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is
    filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 46
    (d).
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Leroy Thurston appeals from the district court’s order grant-
    ing summary judgment in favor of the Louisa County School Board in
    his case arising under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (1994),
    and Fair Labor Standards Act, 
    29 U.S.C.A. § 215
    (a)(3) (West 1998).
    On appeal, Thurston claims that his attorney did not properly
    conduct discovery, and he disputes the amount of money that he owes
    to counsel.   Our review is limited to the issues raised by Thurston
    in his informal brief.    See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).   Because there is no
    right to counsel in a civil case, Thurston’s claims regarding his
    attorney’s alleged errors are not cognizable in this appeal.      See
    Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 
    785 F.2d 1236
    , 1237 (5th
    Cir. 1986) (holding that there is no right to effective assistance
    of counsel in civil cases).     Accordingly, we affirm the order of
    the district court.      We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
    rials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-1521

Filed Date: 10/22/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021