Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bowman v. Baggerly, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Charles Davis Bowman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two Pittsylvania County Sheriff's Department officers. The district court denied relief on Bowman's complaint and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-03-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7866

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Charles Davis Bowman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two Pittsylvania County Sheriff's Department officers. The district court denied relief on Bowman's complaint and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as 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
    7 views2 pages

    Bowman v. Baggerly, 4th Cir. (2004)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Charles Davis Bowman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two Pittsylvania County Sheriff's Department officers. The district court denied relief on Bowman's complaint and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 03-7866

    CHARLES DAVIS BOWMAN,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    W. T. BAGGERLY, Pittsylvania County Sheriffs
    Department; T. L. NICHOLSON, Pittsylvania
    County Sheriffs Department,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (CA-03-718-2)

    Submitted:

    March 25, 2004

    Decided:

    March 31, 2004

    Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Davis Bowman, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Davis Bowman appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint under 28
    U.S.C. 1915A(b) (2000).
    reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

    district court.

    See Bowman v. Baggerly, No. CA-03-718-2 (E.D. Va.

    Nov. 5, 2003).

    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 -

    You might also like