Filed: May 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8572 ANTONIO DOUGLAS WINSLOW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTBROOK PARKER, JR., Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-95-851-CV-2) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8572 ANTONIO DOUGLAS WINSLOW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTBROOK PARKER, JR., Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-95-851-CV-2) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8572
ANTONIO DOUGLAS WINSLOW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WESTBROOK PARKER, JR., Judge,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CA-95-851-CV-2)
Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996
Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Douglas Winslow, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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