Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-02
Citations: 675 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 16-2198
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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