Mary Hill v. City of Suffolk, No. 11-1178 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1178 MARY E. HILL; RICHARD L. TOWNSEND, JR.; HORACE CHAPMAN; MARIE HILL; MAXIE BRINKLEY; PERRY KING, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF SUFFOLK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, Senior District Judge. (2:10-cv-00430-JBF-DEM) Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: November 16, 2011 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary E. Hill; Richard L. Townsend, Jr.; Horace Chapman; Marie Hill; Maxie Brinkley; Perry King, Appellants Pro Se. John Anthony Conrad, CONRAD FIRM, Richmond, Virginia; William Edward Hutchings, Jr., OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Suffolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mary E. Hill and related parties appeal the district court s order denying their motion for an extension of time to file their appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), filed in their underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We have reviewed the record did and conclude the district discretion in denying the motion. de Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d court not abuse its See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont 530, 532 (4th Cir. 1996) (stating an abuse of discretion review standard when a district court grants a motion for an enlargement of time to file an appeal); United States v. Borromeo, 945 F.2d 750, 754 (4th Cir. 1991) (providing an abuse of discretion review denial of a motion for enlargement of time). standard for Accordingly, we deny Appellants pending motion for injunctive relief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hill v. City of Suffolk, No. 2:10-cv-00430-JBF-DEM (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2011). dispense with oral argument because the facts and We 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.