Filed: Dec. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6919 TRAVIS LEE BOWEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT ARIAIL, 13th Circuit Solicitor; STEVE LOFTIS, Greenville County Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:10-cv-01249-CMC) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6919 TRAVIS LEE BOWEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT ARIAIL, 13th Circuit Solicitor; STEVE LOFTIS, Greenville County Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:10-cv-01249-CMC) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circui..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6919
TRAVIS LEE BOWEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT ARIAIL, 13th Circuit Solicitor; STEVE LOFTIS,
Greenville County Sheriff,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (8:10-cv-01249-CMC)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis Lee Bowen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Lee Bowen appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Bowen v. Ariail, No. 8:10-cv-01249-CMC
(D.S.C. June 10, 2010). 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