Case ID: f-appx_520/html/0241-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward BOWIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HENDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT; John Doe; Jane Doe, Defendants-Appellees. Edward Bowie, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henderson Police Department; John Doe; Jane Doe, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 12-2448, 13-1131.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 23, 2013.
    Decided: May 28, 2013.
    Edward Bowie, Appellant Pro Se. Kari Russwurm Johnson, Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Edward Bowie appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bowie v. Henderson Police Dept., No. 5:12-cv-00514-FL, 2012 WL 5392116 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 2012 & Jan. 9, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.