Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Hawkins v. Hale, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Maurice Hawkins filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Ruth Hale, a Virginia magistrate chief, which the district court denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 2) Hawkins appealed the district court's denial of relief on his complaint and denial of his motion for reconsideration. 3) The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's rulings that denied Hawkins' complaint and motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Hawkins v. Hale, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views2 pages
    1) Maurice Hawkins filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Ruth Hale, a Virginia magistrate chief, which the district court denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 2) Hawkins appealed the district court's denial of relief on his complaint and denial of his motion for reconsideration. 3) The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's rulings that denied Hawkins' complaint and motion for reconsideration.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7168

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Maurice Hawkins filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Ruth Hale, a Virginia magistrate chief, which the district court denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 2) Hawkins appealed the district court's denial of relief on his complaint and denial of his motion for reconsideration. 3) The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's rulings that denied Hawkins' complaint and motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    18 views2 pages

    Hawkins v. Hale, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Maurice Hawkins filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Ruth Hale, a Virginia magistrate chief, which the district court denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 2) Hawkins appealed the district court's denial of relief on his complaint and denial of his motion for reconsideration. 3) The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's rulings that denied Hawkins' complaint and motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7168

    MAURICE HAWKINS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RUTH HALE, Commonwealth
    Magistrate,

    of

    Virginia

    Chief
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
    (CA-05-217-GEC-MFU)

    Submitted: December 22, 2005

    Decided:

    December 30, 2005

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Maurice Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Maurice

    Hawkins

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    orders

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint under 28


    U.S.C.

    1915A(b)

    reconsideration.

    We

    reversible error.
    district court.

    (2000)
    have

    and

    denying

    reviewed

    the

    his

    record

    motion
    and

    find

    for
    no

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the


    See Hawkins v. Hale, No. CA-05-217-GEC-MFU (W.D.

    Va. April 13, 2005, July 18, 2005).

    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 -

    You might also like