The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-1271•David J. Hawkins v. BRIAN BERDEGUEZ, Corporal, 1271
03-1271Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 18, 2003
UNPUBLISHED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.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.