Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr. v. Unknown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999286674-2] Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00027-RBS-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999481827]. Mailed to: Lawrence Hawkins, Jr.. [14-6093]

Appeal: 14-6093

Doc: 18

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6093

LAWRENCE LEO HAWKINS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00027-RBS-DEM)

Submitted:

November 14, 2014

Before TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

HAMILTON

November 25, 2014

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6093

Doc: 18

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Lawrence

Leo

Hawkins,

Jr.,

appeals

the

district

court’s order dismissing his action for failure to comply with
its order to particularize his claims, and he has filed a motion
for

transcript

at

government

expense. *

We

have

limited

our

review to the issues raised in Hawkins’ informal brief, see 4th
Cir. R. 34(b), and we deny the pending motion for transcript and
affirm the district court’s judgment.

See Hawkins v. Unknown,

No. 2:13-cv-00027-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed June 26, 2013; entered
June 31, 2013).
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

*

Because Hawkins’ notice of appeal was filed beyond the
appeal period, we previously remanded to the district court with
instructions for it to determine whether Hawkins’ notice of
appeal should be construed as a motion to reopen the appeal
period, and if so, whether reopening was merited. The district
court granted Hawkins a reopening of the appeal period.

2