Filed: Jul. 01, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6315 JONATHAN IDEMA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN HAHN, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-95-611) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Idema, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6315 JONATHAN IDEMA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN HAHN, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-95-611) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Idema, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished op..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6315
JONATHAN IDEMA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN HAHN, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CA-95-611)
Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Idema, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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