Filed: May 10, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2429 BRUCE E. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAY MABUS, Secretary Dept. of the Navy Agency, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00502-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: April 27, 2011 Decided: May 10, 2011 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2429 BRUCE E. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAY MABUS, Secretary Dept. of the Navy Agency, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00502-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: April 27, 2011 Decided: May 10, 2011 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2429 BRUCE E. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAY MABUS, Secretary Dept. of the Navy Agency, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00502-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: April 27, 2011 Decided: May 10, 2011 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce E. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce E. Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for nonpayment of filing fees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Mabus, No. 2:10-cv-00502-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 19; entered Oct. 20, 2010 & Nov. 24, 2010). 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
