Filed: Dec. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7132 MELVIN P. DEUTSCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-408-2) Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: December 17, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7132 MELVIN P. DEUTSCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-408-2) Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: December 17, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Di..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7132 MELVIN P. DEUTSCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-408-2) Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: December 17, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin P. Deutsch, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 requiring him to pay a partial filing fee in order to pursue his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). This issue has already been resolved against Appellant. Deutsch v. United States Dep't of Justice, No. 95-7928 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 1996) (unpublished). We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), as amended by Prison Reform Litigation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321. 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