Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mixon v. Booker, 98-2095 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2095 Visitors: 47
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2095 JAMES P. MIXON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUSSELL E. BOOKER, JR., Division of Vital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
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                              UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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