Holman v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. , 258 F. App'x 919 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 06-3443
    ___________
    Cedric Holman,                          *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., doing      *
    business as Central States Coca Cola    *
    Bottling Company,                       * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 20, 2007
    Filed: December 28, 2007
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Cedric Holman appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
    in his employment-discrimination action against his former employer, Coca-Cola
    Enterprises, Inc. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Holman’s
    arguments, we find no basis for reversal. See Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 
    289 F.3d 517
    ,
    520 (8th Cir. 2002) (de novo standard of review). To the extent Holman is attempting
    1
    The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    to challenge the orders denying his motion to appoint counsel, motion to compel, and
    motion to amend his complaint, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
    discretion. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 
    437 F.3d 791
    , 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (there
    is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil case; relevant
    factors and standard of review); Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 
    408 F.3d 470
    , 477 (8th Cir.
    2005) (review of discovery rulings is narrow and deferential); Bediako v. Stein Mart,
    Inc., 
    354 F.3d 835
    , 841 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court did not abuse its broad
    discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint where litigation
    process was already in advanced stage and plaintiff sought to add theories not
    presented in original complaint).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-