Jimmy Bowman v. J.T. Mann , 683 F. App'x 258 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7485
    JIMMY BOWMAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    J. T. MANN, individually and in official capacity, Detective, Prince George Police
    Department; DET. BRYANT, individually and in official capacity, Detective,
    Prince George Police Department,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cv-00521-REP-RCY)
    Submitted: March 30, 2017                                         Decided: April 3, 2017
    Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jimmy Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Jim H. Guynn, Jr., GUYNN & WADDELL P.C.,
    Salem, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jimmy Bowman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    (2012) complaint. Bowen’s claims are not cognizable under § 1983 because a judgment
    in his favor would necessarily imply that his subsequent criminal conviction was invalid
    and Bowen has not shown that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, declared
    invalid, or otherwise called into question. Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
    , 486-87
    (2006). Because Bowman may refile his claims should his conviction ever be overturned
    or called into question by the appropriate court, we modify the dismissal to be without
    prejudice and affirm as modified. * 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 AS MODIFIED
    *
    In the district court, Bowman included a state constitutional claim. The district
    court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim and dismissed it
    without prejudice. Bowen does not challenge this ruling in his informal brief. See 4th
    Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7485

Citation Numbers: 683 F. App'x 258

Judges: Hamilton, Per Curiam, Traxler, Wynn

Filed Date: 4/3/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024