Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lawrence Topal v. T.E. MacKnight Detective, Check and Fraud Squad Richmond Police, 90-6751 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6751 Visitors: 18
Filed: May 31, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 905 F.2d 1532 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Lawrence TOPAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T.E. MacKNIGHT, Detective, Check and Fraud Squad; Richmond Police, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-6751. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Jan.
More

905 F.2d 1532
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Lawrence TOPAL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
T.E. MacKNIGHT, Detective, Check and Fraud Squad; Richmond
Police, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-6751.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 26, 1990.
Decided May 10, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied May 31, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (C/A No. 89-199-AM)

Lawrence Topal, appellant pro se.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HARRISON L. WINTER, Senior Circuit Judge.*

PER CURIAM:

1

Lawrence Topal 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 affirm the district court's order. 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

AFFIRMED.

*

Judge Winter participated in the consideration of this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 46(d)

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