Filed: Oct. 14, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2095 JAMES P. MIXON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUSSELL E. BOOKER, JR., Division of Vital Records; CHERYL S. ANDREWS, Division of Vital Records; DEBORAH LITTLE, Division of Vital Records; HELEN SWORDOUT, Division of Vital Records, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-22-2) Submitted: Septemb
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2095 JAMES P. MIXON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUSSELL E. BOOKER, JR., Division of Vital Records; CHERYL S. ANDREWS, Division of Vital Records; DEBORAH LITTLE, Division of Vital Records; HELEN SWORDOUT, Division of Vital Records, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-22-2) Submitted: Septembe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2095
JAMES P. MIXON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RUSSELL E. BOOKER, JR., Division of Vital
Records; CHERYL S. ANDREWS, Division of Vital
Records; DEBORAH LITTLE, Division of Vital
Records; HELEN SWORDOUT, Division of Vital
Records,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-98-22-2)
Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Mixon, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James P. Mixon, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
denying in forma pauperis status in his civil action. The denial of
in forma pauperis status is an immediately appealable order. See
Roberts v. United States District Court,
339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find
no abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the order. Mixon v.
Booker, No. CA-98-22-2 (E.D. Va. July 22, 1998). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2