Filed: Aug. 07, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6504 RONNIE KNIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD HABEEB, Doctor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-98-89-2) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 7, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Knight, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6504 RONNIE KNIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD HABEEB, Doctor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-98-89-2) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 7, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Knight, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6504 RONNIE KNIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD HABEEB, Doctor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-98-89-2) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 7, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Knight, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronnie Knight appeals from the district court’s order dismiss- ing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(b)(1) (West Supp. 1998). The district court found that Knight failed to either submit a signed form consenting to the collection of fees or submit the entire filing fee. The district court, however, subsequently redocketed the action upon finding that Knight complied with the court order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
