USCA4 Appeal: 24-1627 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1627

MAURICE HAWKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GRTC OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00347-MHL-MRC)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 21, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Logan Leete Page, WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1627 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Hawkins, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his civil action without prejudice after concluding that Hawkins, who had not paid the filing

fee, was a three-striker who did not qualify to proceed in forma pauperis. * On appeal,

Hawkins contends that one of the strikes identified by the district court—Hawkins v.

Johnson, No. 7:04-cv-00360-GEC-MFU (W.D. Va. filed July 12, 2004 & entered July 13,

2004)—should not have counted as a strike because it involved a mixed decision. We

affirm.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner who has accrued three or more

strikes—actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted—may not proceed without prepayment of fees

unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

(g). To

count as a strike, the entire action must be dismissed on one or more of these enumerated

grounds. Tolbert v. Stevenson,

(4th Cir. 2011).

In Hawkins v. Johnson, Hawkins alleged an Eighth Amendment violation and a

Fourteenth Amendment violation. He also attached to his complaint a prison grievance in

which he complained of negligence. The district court dismissed the constitutional claims

for failure to state a claim. Regarding the grievance, the court observed that negligence is

a state law tort that is not cognizable in a

action. The court then

explained: “This court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state tort claim if

* Hawkins has paid the appellate filing fee.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1627 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

there were a valid federal claim presented as well. See

(a). However,

because there are no valid federal claims, this court cannot entertain a complaint based

solely on a state tort claim.”

Hawkins maintains that he asserted a negligence claim over which the district court

declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. We disagree. First, a review of the district

court’s opinion makes clear that the court construed Hawkins’s complaint as alleging only

the two constitutional claims. Moreover, the court expressly stated, both in its opinion and

the accompanying order, that the entire action was dismissed for failure to state a claim,

thus belying Hawkins’s argument that the court rendered a mixed decision. Finally, even

if the court thought that Hawkins intended to raise a negligence claim, the court stated that

it lacked discretion to consider it. Thus, contrary to Hawkins’s assertion, the court did not

merely decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Because the district court dismissed the entirety of Hawkins v. Johnson for failure

to state a claim, we reject Hawkins’s challenge to his three-striker designation.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Hawkins v. GRTC of Richmond, No.

3:24-cv-00347-MHL-MRC (E.D. Va. June 4, 2024). 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

3