Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brown v. Guilory, 95-7834 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7834 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7834 MICHAEL LYNN BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DON GUILORY, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; LARRY JARVIS, Assistant Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; JACK LEE, Assistant Warden, Augusta Correctional Center; BOBBY SOLES, Assistant Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige,
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 95-7834



MICHAEL LYNN BROWN,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

DON GUILORY, Warden, Powhatan Correctional
Center; LARRY JARVIS, Assistant Warden,
Powhatan Correctional Center; JACK LEE,
Assistant Warden, Augusta Correctional Center;
BOBBY SOLES, Assistant Warden, Buckingham
Correctional Center,
                                             Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-95-523)

Submitted:   January 11, 1996             Decided:   January 25, 1996


Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lynn Brown, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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 deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argu-

ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.




                                                         DISMISSED




                                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