Ronald Hayward v. Eric Brown


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000078549-2] Originating case number: 8:15-cv-03381-PWG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000140551]. Mailed to: R. Hayward. [17-1465]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1465 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1465 RONALD HAYWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERIC C. BROWN, Executive Director; SHARON LAND, Deputy Director; YVONNE ALEXANDER, Deputy Director; JOSEPHINE B. CLAY, Hearing Officer; JOYCE RICHARDSON, Program Manager; WILLIAM VALENTINE, Rental Specialist Supervisor; PAMELA JONES, Compliance Specialist, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-cv-03381-PWG) Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 21, 2017 Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Hayward, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Blackburn Riley, BLACKBURN RILEY LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-1465 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Hayward appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint after the parties reached a settlement agreement in which Hayward agreed to release his claims against the defendants. On appeal, Hayward does not dispute the existence of the agreement or that its terms are clear and constitute the entire agreement among the parties. Because Hayward proffers no viable challenge to the enforceability of the agreement, we affirm the judgment of the district court. * We further deny the motion to appoint counsel. 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 * On the same day he noted his appeal, Hayward filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion, which the district court subsequently denied. Because Hayward did not note a separate appeal of the order denying his Rule 59 motion, that order is not before this court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). 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?