under state law, where it was not adopted in accordance with state procedural requirements and where the county had e discrimination among service providers. NTA contends that the moratorium was imposed in direct response to its application, and that the Town therefore discriminated. Affidavits provided by the Town, however, support its claim that the moratorium was not aimed specifically at NTA. Moreover, the record contains no evidence that the Town has treated other applicants more favorably. As noted above, a valid basis existed for the moratorium. Additionally, the record reflects no “ill will” either towards NTA or towards the telecommunications industry, in general. See AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423, 427-28 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Cellco Partnership v. Town Plan and Zoning
holding that in the absence of an exception a motion filed outside the twoyear period will not invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court holding that city did not discriminate in the absence of a showing of ill will holding that we will not reverse in the absence of prejudice holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law holding a city liable for personal injuries caused by a driver colliding with a girder in the center of a city street where the city did not give a warning