Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Bowler v. Young, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Joseph Bowler filed a § 1983 complaint against S.K. Young which was dismissed as frivolous by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Bowler appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's dismissal on the reasoning stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Bowler v. Young, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Joseph Bowler filed a § 1983 complaint against S.K. Young which was dismissed as frivolous by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Bowler appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's dismissal on the reasoning stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-10-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7051

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Joseph Bowler filed a § 1983 complaint against S.K. Young which was dismissed as frivolous by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Bowler appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's dismissal on the reasoning stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    Bowler v. Young, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Joseph Bowler filed a § 1983 complaint against S.K. Young which was dismissed as frivolous by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Bowler appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's dismissal on the reasoning stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    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 courts order dismissing as
    frivolous his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000), complaint under 28 U.S.C.
    1915A(b) (2000).
    reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    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

    You might also like