Jimmy Bowman v. J.T. Mann

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00521-REP-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000054456]. Mailed to: Jimmy Bowman. [16-7485]

Appeal: 16-7485

Doc: 12

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7485

Doc: 12

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

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