Filed: Feb. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2088 LAWRENCE E. BOWLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH E. LAWSON, a/k/a Casey, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN E. LUTZ; DAVID MCCLAVE; JANE MCCLAVE LAWSON; HILDRETH ROBINSON, a/k/a Jerry, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1158-2) Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Be
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2088 LAWRENCE E. BOWLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH E. LAWSON, a/k/a Casey, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN E. LUTZ; DAVID MCCLAVE; JANE MCCLAVE LAWSON; HILDRETH ROBINSON, a/k/a Jerry, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1158-2) Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Bef..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2088 LAWRENCE E. BOWLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH E. LAWSON, a/k/a Casey, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN E. LUTZ; DAVID MCCLAVE; JANE MCCLAVE LAWSON; HILDRETH ROBINSON, a/k/a Jerry, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1158-2) Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence E. Bowling, Appellant Pro Se. James William Lane, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lawrence E. Bowling appeals the district court’s order award- ing Bowling $500 in compensatory damages against Kenneth “Casey” Lawson for slander and dismissing Bowling’s remaining claims against Lawson. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bowling v. Lawson, No. CA-98-1158-2 (S.D.W. Va. July 21, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2