Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bowman v. Walker, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Thomas E. Bowman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various defendants. The district court denied Bowman relief and denied his motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-02-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6049

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Thomas E. Bowman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various defendants. The district court denied Bowman relief and denied his motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views2 pages

    Bowman v. Walker, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Thomas E. Bowman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various defendants. The district court denied Bowman relief and denied his motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-6049

    THOMAS E. BOWMAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    OFFICER WALKER; PHUMPHRIES; MR. ROOP; MRS.
    CHEVRELL; CLARKE FREDERICK WINCHESTER REGIONAL
    JAIL,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-98-506-R)

    Submitted:

    February 8, 2000

    Decided:

    February 24, 2000

    Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Thomas E. Bowman, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas E. Bowman appeals the district courts orders denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint and
    denying his motion for reconsideration.

    We have reviewed the rec-

    ord and the district courts opinions and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
    Bowman v. Walker, No. CA-98-506-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 22 & Nov. 5,
    1998).

    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

    You might also like