Filed: Jan. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7421 LORENZO ADKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDENS, Indian Creek Correctional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-95-315) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Adkins,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7421 LORENZO ADKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDENS, Indian Creek Correctional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-95-315) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Adkins, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7421
LORENZO ADKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WARDENS, Indian Creek Correctional Center,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CA-95-315)
Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorenzo Adkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See I.O.P. 36.5 and 36.6.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. 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 Appellant failed to comply with the fee
order. 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.
AFFIRMED
2