Bowman v. Haynes

Fourth Circuit

Bowman v. Haynes

89 F. App'x 417

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 16, 2004·No. No. 03-7116·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Bowman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bowman v. Haynes, 282 F.Supp.2d 488 (N.D.W. Va.2003). Bowman’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Bowman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bowman v. Haynes, 282 F.Supp.2d 488 (N.D.W. Va.2003). Bowman’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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

Bowman v. Haynes, 89 F. App'x 417 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

89 F. App'x 417 (Bowman v. Haynes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related