U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2000

Wilkins v. Hawthorne

Wilkins v. Hawthorne
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 2, 2000

Wilkins v. Hawthorne

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1478

MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

ROBERT E. HAWTHORNE, Personally and as Attor- ney for the Benchmark Community Bank and in his Capacity as Sole Acting Trustee; JAMES A.

MURRAY; BENCHMARK COMMUNITY BANK; ANZILIA W.

MURRAY, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-789-3)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 2, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael D. Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. James Corbin Bodie, THOMPSON, SMITHERS, NEWMAN, WADE & CHILDRESS, Richmond, Virginia; Donald Francis Lynch, III, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; James Joseph Burns, Elizabeth Powell Mason, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CLARK & DOBBINS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Michael D. Wilkins appeals the district court’s orders award- ing attorneys fees to Defendants resulting from their defense of Wilkins’ complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000), and denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinions, and Wilkins’ informal appellate brief. Because Wilkins failed to chal- lenge the bases for the district court’s rulings, he has failed to preserve any issue for appellate review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wilkins v. Hawthorne, No. CA-99-789-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10 & Mar. 23, 2000). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.