Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mossa v. Hill, 98-6483 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6483 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6483 ANGEL MOSSA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENN HILL, Superintendent; CHARLES LAND, Major; PETER MEDETIS, Captain; JANET RENO, Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-59) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6483 ANGEL MOSSA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENN HILL, Superintendent; CHARLES LAND, Major; PETER MEDETIS, Captain; JANET RENO, Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-59) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angel Mossa, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Angel Mossa appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. The dis- trict court ordered Mossa to pay a partial, initial filing fee with the remainder of the fee to be paid in installments from Mossa's prison account. The district court could properly require such col- lection from an inmate under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Accordingly, the court's dismissal of the action, without prejudice, when Mossa failed to comply with its order was not an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the judgment below. We deny Mossa's motion for transcript. 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 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