Filed: Oct. 21, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7051 JOSEPH BOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-394-7) Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Bowler, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7051 JOSEPH BOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-394-7) Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Bowler, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7051 JOSEPH BOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-394-7) Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Bowler, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Bowler appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bowler v. Young, No. CA-03-394-7 (W.D. Va. June 25, 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
