Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Henry Pendleton Hamm, Jr. v. Edward K. Carpenter, Commonwealth of Goochland County, Virginia, 90-6144 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6144 Visitors: 64
Filed: Dec. 05, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 917 F.2d 1301 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Henry Pendleton HAMM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward K. CARPENTER, Commonwealth of Goochland County, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-6144. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submit
More

917 F.2d 1301
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Henry Pendleton HAMM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Edward K. CARPENTER, Commonwealth of Goochland County,
Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-6144.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 1990.
Decided Nov. 13, 1990.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-90-545A-R)

Henry Pendleton Hamm, Jr., appellant pro se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Henry Pendleton Hamm, Jr. appeals the district court's dismissal of this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to pay the assessed filing fee. Finding that the district court properly complied with the procedures approved in Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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.

2

DISMISSED.

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