Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Karl Mitchal Bowser v. Officer Byrd, 90-6318 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6318 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jul. 25, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 911 F.2d 720 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Karl Mitchal BOWSER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer BYRD, Defendant-Appellee. No. 90-6318. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted July 9, 1990. Decided July 24, 1990. As Amended July 25,
More

911 F.2d 720
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Karl Mitchal BOWSER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Officer BYRD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-6318.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 1990.
Decided July 24, 1990.
As Amended July 25, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (C/A No. 89-135-R)

Karl Mitchal Bowser, appellant pro se.

John Adrian Gibney, Jr., Shuford, Rubin, Gibney & Dunn, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Karl Mitchal Bowser appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bowser v. Byrd, C/A No. 89-135-R (E.D.Va. Apr. 16, 1990). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer