Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0264-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lawrence Leo HAWKINS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-6093.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 14, 2014.
    Decided: Nov. 25, 2014.
    
      Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action for failure to comply with its order to particularize his claims, and he has filed a motion for transcript at government expense. We have limited our review to the issues raised in Hawkins’ informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and we deny the pending motion for transcript and affirm the district court’s judgment. See Hawkins v. Unknown, No. 2:13-cv-00027-RBS-DEM (E.D.Va. filed June 26, 2013; entered June 31, 2013). 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 
      
       Because Hawkins’ notice of appeal was filed beyond the appeal period, we previously remanded to the district court with instructions for it to determine whether Hawkins' notice of appeal should be construed as a motion to reopen the appeal period, and if so, whether reopening was merited. The district court granted Hawkins a reopening of the appeal period.