Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03443/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03443-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Coca-Cola Enterprises
Appellee
Cedric Holman
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

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Bottling Company, * [UNPUBLISHED]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

Appellate Case: 06-3443 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2007 Entry ID: 3386537
-2-

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.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3443 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2007 Entry ID: 3386537