Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02198/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02198-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2198 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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

Appeal: 16-2198 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 2