Filed: Oct. 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1518 IVORY L. HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARC-TECH, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00447-RBS-DEM) Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivory L. Hawkins, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1518 IVORY L. HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARC-TECH, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00447-RBS-DEM) Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivory L. Hawkins, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1518 IVORY L. HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARC-TECH, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00447-RBS-DEM) Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivory L. Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Charles Gulin, PARGAMENT & HALLOWELL, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ivory L. Hawkins appeals the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Hawkins v. Arc-Tech, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-00447-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2011). Hawkins’ pending motion for transcripts at the Government’s expense is denied. 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
