Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

William Franklin Bechtel, Jr. v. Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, 90-7078 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-7078 Visitors: 34
Filed: Sep. 18, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 914 F.2d 247 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. William Franklin BECHTEL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clarence L. JACKSON, Jr., Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendant-Appellee. No. 90-7078. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted A
More

914 F.2d 247
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
William Franklin BECHTEL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Clarence L. JACKSON, Jr., Chairman, Virginia Parole Board,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-7078.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 27, 1990.
Decided Sept. 18, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (C/A No. 90-398-A)

William Franklin Bechtel, Jr., appellant pro se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

William Franklin Bechtel 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 deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.* 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

DISMISSED.

*

On appeal, Bechtel claims he mistakenly paid the assessed filing fee to the wrong party. The disposition by the district court allows him to refile his complaint, with proper payment

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