Ronald Hawkins, Sr. v. City of Richmond, No. 16-2198 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2198 RONALD E. HAWKINS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF RICHMOND; CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.