Case Name: Mary E. HILL; Richard L. Townsend, Jr.; Horace Chapman; Marie Hill; Maxie Brinkley; Perry King, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SUFFOLK, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-16
Citations: 453 F. App'x 348
Docket Number: No. 11-1178
Parties: Mary E. HILL; Richard L. Townsend, Jr.; Horace Chapman; Marie Hill; Maxie Brinkley; Perry King, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SUFFOLK, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
Mary E. HILL; Richard L. Townsend, Jr.; Horace Chapman; Marie Hill; Maxie Brinkley; Perry King, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SUFFOLK, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-1178.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2011.
Decided: Nov. 16, 2011.
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 Hutch-ings, Jr., Office of the City Attorney, Suffolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 and conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 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 standard for denial of a motion for enlargement of time). 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). 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.