Filed: Feb. 24, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6049 THOMAS E. BOWMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER WALKER; PHUMPHRIES; MR.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 Dis- trict 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 Ju
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6049 THOMAS E. BOWMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER WALKER; PHUMPHRIES; MR.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 Dis- trict 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 Jud..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6049 THOMAS E. BOWMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER WALKER; PHUMPHRIES; MR.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 Dis- trict 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 court’s 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 court’s 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 2
