Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Joseph Bowler filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Bowler appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also denied Bowler's request for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Bowler's § 1983 complaint.

    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
    8 views2 pages
    Joseph Bowler filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Bowler appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also denied Bowler's request for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Bowler's § 1983 complaint.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-03-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6970

    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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Bowler appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also denied Bowler's request for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Bowler's § 1983 complaint.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Joseph Bowler filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Bowler appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also denied Bowler's request for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Bowler's § 1983 complaint.

    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. 02-6970

    JOSEPH BOWLER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    S. K. YOUNG, Warden; A. P. HARVEY, Operations,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-01-800)

    Submitted:

    March 3, 2003

    Decided:

    March 12, 2003

    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joseph Bowler, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant


    Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph Bowler appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    We have reviewed

    the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on


    the reasoning of the district court.
    01-800 (W.D. Va. June 12, 2002).

    See Bowler v. Young, No. CA-

    We also deny Bowlers motion for

    appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like