Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

92-6590 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6590 Visitors: 25
Filed: Aug. 06, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 972 F.2d 341 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Sam PITTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. SMITH, Jr., Regional Administrator; D. R. Lawson, Chief Deputy Warden; John Holland, Institutional Physician; State Employed Medical Staff & COntract; Southside Medical Service, Incorpor
More

972 F.2d 341

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Sam PITTS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
James A. SMITH, Jr., Regional Administrator; D. R. Lawson,
Chief Deputy Warden; John Holland, Institutional Physician;
State Employed Medical Staff & COntract; Southside Medical
Service, Incorporated; Shirley Mitchell, Head Nurse, GRCC
BUnit Medical Department; Brenda Wright, L.P.N., GRCC
Medical Department B-Unit; Unknown Nurse, L.P.N.,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6590.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 1992
Decided: August 6, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-714)

Sam Pitts, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

Dismissed.

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Sam Pitts filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Plaintiff failed to comply with the fee order. The district court also denied Pitts's motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff appeals. Finding no abuse of discretion, 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.

DISMISSED

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