Joseph Bowler v. D.A. BRAXTON, Chief Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6035
JOSEPH BOWLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
D.A. BRAXTON, Chief Warden; ASSISTANT WARDEN
ARMENTROUT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-652-7)
Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Bowler appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Bowler v. Braxton, No. CA-03-652-7 (W.D. Va.
Dec. 3, 2003). We note that this is Bowler’s third “strike” for
purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Bowler v. Young,
No. CA-03-148 (W.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2003), appeal dismissed, No.
03-7113 (4th Cir. Oct. 8, 2003) (unpublished); Bowler v. Young, No.
CA-03-231 (W.D. Va. Apr. 7, 2003), appeal dismissed, No. 03-7090
(4th Cir. Oct. 8, 2003) (unpublished). Accordingly, Bowler may not
file any new civil action without prepayment of the full filing fee
unless he shows he is “under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2000). 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

-- 2 of 2 --