Hickman v. Jackson, No. 05-7688 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7688 RONALD HICKMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TRACEY A. JACKSON, Lieutenant; CAROLYN BURRELL, Sergeant; VIRGIL HAYDON, Captain, Chief of Inmate Services; EDWARD HULL, Major; HERBERT L. WRIGHT, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-363-2-HCM-FBS) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. Johan Conrod, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeff W. Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald Hickman appeals from the district court s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and entering judgment in favor of Defendants in Hickman s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. Because neither party moved for a jury trial, the magistrate judge held a hearing on Hickman s claim that his right to privacy was violated when he was seen naked by female correctional officers. The magistrate judge made detailed findings of fact that were adopted by the district court. On credibility appeal, findings, Hickman challenges asserting that the district Defendants court s witnesses testimony was replete with contradictions and provable falsity. Our review of characterization. the record does not support Hickman s Instead, we find that Hickman s allegations involve either non-material facts or are not supported by the record. In addition, we give great deference to the magistrate judge s credibility determinations, because the magistrate judge heard the actual testimony. 604, 614 (4th Cir. 1994). See United States v. D Anjou, 16 F.3d Thus, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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.