Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Melvin Hill v. Postal Service, 12-6377 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-6377 Visitors: 40
Filed: Jul. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6377 MELVIN HILL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-00525-JFM) Submitted: June 28, 2012 Decided: July 12, 2012 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6377 MELVIN HILL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-00525-JFM) Submitted: June 28, 2012 Decided: July 12, 2012 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Melvin Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to pay the filing fees. If a litigant has had three actions or appeals dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the litigant may not proceed without prepayment of fees unless the applicant is under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2006). Hill has had three such prior dismissals: Hill v. Hughes, 1:00-cv-3204 (D. Md. 2000), Hill v. Woods, 1:96-cv-3034 (D. Md. 1996), Hill v. Harvey, 1:96-cv-3886 (D. Md. 1996). Hill has not alleged that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Therefore, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 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 2
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