Testo completo
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1178
MARY E. HILL; RICHARD L. TOWNSEND, JR.; HORACE CHAPMAN;
MARIE HILL; MAXIE BRINKLEY; PERRY KING,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITY OF SUFFOLK,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cv-00430-JBF-DEM)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: November 16, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary E. Hill; Richard L. Townsend, Jr.; Horace Chapman; Marie
Hill; Maxie Brinkley; Perry King, Appellants Pro Se. John
Anthony Conrad, CONRAD FIRM, Richmond, Virginia; William Edward
Hutchings, Jr., OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Suffolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Mary E. Hill and related parties appeal the district
court’s order denying their motion for an extension of time to
file their appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), filed in their
underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We have reviewed the
record and conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont
de Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 530, 532 (4th Cir. 1996)
(stating an abuse of discretion review standard when a district
court grants a motion for an enlargement of time to file an
appeal); United States v. Borromeo, 945 F.2d 750, 754 (4th Cir.
1991) (providing an abuse of discretion review standard for
denial of a motion for enlargement of time). Accordingly, we
deny Appellants’ pending motion for injunctive relief and affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Hill v. City of
Suffolk, No. 2:10-cv-00430-JBF-DEM (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2011). 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 --