Filed: May 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6040 ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANITA SMITH, M.D., Medical Director of Valley Community Services; PATRICIA PORTER, M S W, Forensic Evaluator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-333-2) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6040 ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANITA SMITH, M.D., Medical Director of Valley Community Services; PATRICIA PORTER, M S W, Forensic Evaluator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-333-2) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, an..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6040
ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ANITA SMITH, M.D., Medical Director of Valley
Community Services; PATRICIA PORTER, M S W,
Forensic Evaluator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-95-333-2)
Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996
Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lee Brock, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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