Filed: Feb. 22, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7504 TYRONE WAYNE MOORE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAYNE L. EMERY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-408) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7504 TYRONE WAYNE MOORE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAYNE L. EMERY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-408) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7504
TYRONE WAYNE MOORE, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WAYNE L. EMERY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-95-408)
Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Wayne Moore, Sr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. ยง 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 argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2