Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Brock v. Smith, 96-6040 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6040 Visitors: 9
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6040 ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANITA SMITH, M.D.,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
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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