UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LORENZO W. COATS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                  No. 97-1534
DANIEL P. KIEHART; MICHAEL P.
SHEETZ; DUKE UNIVERSITY,
INCORPORATED; ROBERT WINFREE,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-94-292, CA-94-293, CA-94-294, CA-94-295)

Submitted: May 28, 1998

Decided: July 31, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Lorenzo W. Coats, Appellant Pro Se. John Morgan Simpson, Joseph
Walker, FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, Washington, D.C., for Appel-
lees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo W. Coats appeals the district court's order denying his
motion to vacate an arbitration award, granting Defendant's motion
to confirm arbitration, and dismissing with prejudice his employment
discrimination claims. We affirm the order of the district court.

First, we find that Coats' unsupported allegations that Duke Uni-
versity's arbitration policy discriminates against blacks are insuffi-
cient to merit relief. See Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35 (4th Cir.
1990). Further, to the extent that Coats avers that statutory claims are
not arbitrable, he is mistaken. See Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass
Container, Inc., 78 F.3d 875, 885-86 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 65
U.S.L.W. 3351 (U.S. Nov. 12, 1996) (No. 96-337). Next, we find
unavailing Coats' claim that he was not an employee of Duke Univer-
sity and therefore was not subject to arbitration. The record reveals
that Coats admitted to being employed by Duke and receiving
employee benefits from Duke. Moreover, because Coats voluntarily
availed himself of the arbitration procedure, he cannot now claim that
there was no arbitration agreement. See Orion Pictures Corp. v. Writ-
ers Guild of Am., W., Inc., 946 F.2d 722, 725-26 (9th Cir. 1991).
Finally, to the extent that Coats claims he was coerced into arbitrating
his claims because he did not know that by registering for employee
benefits he agreed to arbitration, his claim is without merit. See
Stedor Enters., Ltd. v. Armtex, Inc., 947 F.2d 727, 733 (4th Cir.
1991); see also Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20,
33 (1991).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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
