Case ID: f-appx_675/html/0327-02.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

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.
    No. 16-2198
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 31, 2017
    Decided: February 2, 2017
    
      Ronald E. Hawkins, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Earl Hill, Jr., City Attorney’s Office, Richmond, Virginia; Donald El-dridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hawkins’ informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Hawkins has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s orders. 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). 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