Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Adrian Henry Sellers v. Nathaniel O. Boykin W.E. McMichael, 89-6800 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-6800 Visitors: 27
Filed: May 21, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 905 F.2d 1531 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Adrian Henry SELLERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nathaniel O. BOYKIN; W.E. McMichael, Defendants-Appellees. No. 89-6800. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted May 7, 1990. Decided May 21,
More

905 F.2d 1531

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Adrian Henry SELLERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nathaniel O. BOYKIN; W.E. McMichael, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-6800.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 7, 1990.
Decided May 21, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (C/A No. 89-218-CRT-H)

Adrian Henry Sellers, appellant pro se.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Adrian Henry Sellers appeals the district court's dismissal of this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to pay the assessed filing fee.* Finding that the district court complied with the procedures approved in Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice, we affirm the district court's order. 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

*

For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date appellant placed on the notice of appeal is the earliest date he would have given it to prison authorities

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