The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-2088•Lawrence E. Bowling v. Kenneth E. Lawson, a/k/a Casey
00-2088Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 15, 2001
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.