Filed: Oct. 22, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6951 KEITH B. HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT; SAMMY HODGES; E. G. BAYNON; MARVIN HIGH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-681-AM) Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: October 22, 1996 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6951 KEITH B. HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT; SAMMY HODGES; E. G. BAYNON; MARVIN HIGH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-681-AM) Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: October 22, 1996 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6951 KEITH B. HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT; SAMMY HODGES; E. G. BAYNON; MARVIN HIGH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-681-AM) Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: October 22, 1996 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith B. Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Keith B. Hawkins appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) 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. Norfolk Police Dep't, No. CA-96-681-AM (E.D. Va. May 17, 1996). 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 2
