Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2285 IDA HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GUY GARHEART, in his individual capacity as Chief of Police; BRUCE HERSHFIELD, Dr., in his individual capacity as Superintendent, Spring- field State Hospital, Defendants - Appellees, and RICKY LEE HINKLE; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2922-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2285 IDA HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GUY GARHEART, in his individual capacity as Chief of Police; BRUCE HERSHFIELD, Dr., in his individual capacity as Superintendent, Spring- field State Hospital, Defendants - Appellees, and RICKY LEE HINKLE; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2922-K..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2285 IDA HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GUY GARHEART, in his individual capacity as Chief of Police; BRUCE HERSHFIELD, Dr., in his individual capacity as Superintendent, Spring- field State Hospital, Defendants - Appellees, and RICKY LEE HINKLE; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2922-K) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ida Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Paul Fletcher-Hill, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hawkins v. Garheart, No. CA-94-2922-K (D. Md. June 6, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2