Ronald E. Hawkins, Sr. v. City of Richmond

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00216-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000015839]. Mailed to: Ronald E. Hawkins Sr. 2341 Brook Road Richmond, VA 23220. [16-2198]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2198 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2198 RONALD E. HAWKINS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF RICHMOND; CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF RICHMOND MAGISTRATE OFFICE; MICHAEL MOCELLO, Richmond Police Officer; MARTESHA BISHOP, Richmond Magistrate; GARY WOOLBRIDGE, Richmond Chief Magistrate; EARL FERNANDEZ, Richmond Police Officer; R. L. JAMISON, Richmond Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00216-REP) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald E. Hawkins, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Earl Hill, Jr., CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia; DONALD ELDRIDGE JEFFREY, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-2198 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Ronald E. Hawkins, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss Hawkins’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, and denying Hawkins’ motion for leave to amend his complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s informal brief. R. 34(b). the bases See 4th Cir. Because Hawkins’ informal brief does not challenge for the district court’s disposition, Hawkins forfeited appellate review of the district court’s orders. has See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). We thus affirm the district court’s orders. See Hawkins v. City of Richmond, No. 3:16-cv-00216-REP (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2016). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?