Filed: Feb. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7815 ANTHONY HOLLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DON R. GUILLORY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-95-694) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Hol
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7815 ANTHONY HOLLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DON R. GUILLORY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-95-694) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Holl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7815
ANTHONY HOLLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DON R. GUILLORY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-95-694)
Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996
Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Holley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing his
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his motion for recon-
sideration. 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 materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2