Hawkins v. Berdeguez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 18, 2003
• Docket: 03-1271
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1271

DAVID J. HAWKINS; TRACENE LEE HAWKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellants,

versus

BRIAN BERDEGUEZ, Corporal, #1271; A. ROSITCH, Corporal, #1264; GIRARD LOMBARDI, Corporal #2184; DENNIS HAYES, Corporal, #1074; ROBERT F. EDWARDS, Corporal, #1293; ELIZABETH MINTS, Lieutenant, #804, Prince George’s County Police Department, individually and in their official capacity; RICHARD J. WELSH, Major, Commander, Prince George’s County Police Department, individually and in his official capacity; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND, A body of Corporate and Politic Officer of Law, RAY MCCASLIN, Corporal, #1087, Prince George County Policy Department, individually and in his official capacity; JASON LABBE; JOHN DOE, Officer, Prince George’s Count Police Department, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-47-AW)

Submitted: July 31, 2003 Decided: August 18, 2003

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Y. Ai, Barbara R. Graham, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellants. William A. Snoddy, Associate Count Attorney, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

David and Tracene Hawkins appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint alleging

violations of the Fourth Amendment. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Hawkins v. Berdeguez, No.

CA-01-47-AW (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2003). 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