Filed: Oct. 26, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6681 ANTHONY D. HAWKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNKNOWN OFFICERS, of the City of Baltimore in the District of Front Hill Southwestern Police Department; DAVID PHIPPS, E-128, an officer of the Front Hill Southwestern Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 97-3509-PJM) Submitted: October 8,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6681 ANTHONY D. HAWKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNKNOWN OFFICERS, of the City of Baltimore in the District of Front Hill Southwestern Police Department; DAVID PHIPPS, E-128, an officer of the Front Hill Southwestern Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 97-3509-PJM) Submitted: October 8, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6681 ANTHONY D. HAWKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNKNOWN OFFICERS, of the City of Baltimore in the District of Front Hill Southwestern Police Department; DAVID PHIPPS, E-128, an officer of the Front Hill Southwestern Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 97-3509-PJM) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony D. Hawks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony D. Hawks appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) 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. Hawks v. Unknown Officers, No. CA-97-3509-PJM (D. Md. Mar. 17, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
