Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Richardson v. Sisk, 08-6050 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-6050 Visitors: 30
Filed: Nov. 19, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6050 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JAMES SISK, Manager/Compute; GENE JOHNSON, Director; ROBERT MCDONALD, Attorney General; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants – Appellees. No. 08-6769 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JAMES SISK, Manager/Compute; GENE JOHNSON, Director; ROBERT MCDONALD, Attorney General; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants – Appellees. Appeals from the United States Distr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6050 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JAMES SISK, Manager/Compute; GENE JOHNSON, Director; ROBERT MCDONALD, Attorney General; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants – Appellees. No. 08-6769 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JAMES SISK, Manager/Compute; GENE JOHNSON, Director; ROBERT MCDONALD, Attorney General; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants – Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00488-REP) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 19, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Gregory A. Richardson appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) for failure to pay his filing fee, and the order denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the orders and record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Richardson v. Sisk, No. 3:07-cv- 00488-REP (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 2007; Apr. 28, 2008). 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 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer