Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Matthew William Abrams v. David Mapp, Sheriff Yvonne Frank David, Mrs., 91-6073 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-6073 Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 31, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 947 F.2d 940 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Matthew William ABRAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David MAPP, Sheriff; Yvonne Frank David, Mrs., Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-6073. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted June 27, 1991. Decided Oct. 31, 1991. Appe
More

947 F.2d 940

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Matthew William ABRAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David MAPP, Sheriff; Yvonne Frank David, Mrs., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-6073.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 27, 1991.
Decided Oct. 31, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-91-107-N)

Matthew William Abrams, appellant pro se.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Matthew William Abrams appeals the district court's dismissal of this 42 U.S.C. § 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.

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