Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

John Calvin Ruffin v. E. B. Wright, Warden Ronald J. Angelone, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, 94-6914 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6914 Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 14, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 47 F.3d 1165 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. John Calvin RUFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. B. WRIGHT, Warden; Ronald J. Angelone, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-6914. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted
More

47 F.3d 1165

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
John Calvin RUFFIN, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
E. B. WRIGHT, Warden; Ronald J. Angelone, Director of the
Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 94-6914.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 19, 1995.
Decided Feb. 14, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-93-1481-AM)

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

John Calvin Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se.

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

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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 Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. 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 mate rials 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