Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Calvin Tucker v. Herbert Parr, Manager Benjamin Mitchell, Manager of Shop David A. Williams, Warden, 91-7343 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7343 Visitors: 20
Filed: Feb. 14, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 955 F.2d 42 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Calvin TUCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herbert PARR, Manager; Benjamin Mitchell, Manager of Shop; David A. Williams, Warden, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-7343. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 3, 1992.
More

955 F.2d 42

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Calvin TUCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Herbert PARR, Manager; Benjamin Mitchell, Manager of Shop;
David A. Williams, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7343.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 3, 1992.
Decided Feb. 14, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-298-N)

Calvin Tucker, appellant pro se.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Calvin Tucker filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Plaintiff failed to comply with the fee order. Plaintiff appeals. Finding no abuse of discretion, 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.

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