Filed: May 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7232 RONALD N. HASKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRIAN K. HAWK, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-02000-TJS) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ron
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7232 RONALD N. HASKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRIAN K. HAWK, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-02000-TJS) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rona..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7232
RONALD N. HASKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN K. HAWK, Correctional Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judge.
(1:11-cv-02000-TJS)
Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald N. Haskins, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas F. Gansler, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Laura
Mullally, Assistant Chief Counsel, Pikesville, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald N. Haskins appeals from the district court’s order,
following a jury verdict, entering judgment in favor of the
Defendant in Haskins’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) suit. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm. * 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
*
We also deny Haskins’ motion for injunctive relief as moot
and not in compliance with Fed. R. App. P. 8.
2