Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brown v. Director of the VDOC, 96-6427 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6427 Visitors: 40
Filed: Aug. 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6427 KEITH MICHAEL BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR OF THE VDOC; FRED W. GREEN, Warden; SAMUEL L. BATTS, Assistant Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-963-2) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judg
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 96-6427



KEITH MICHAEL BROWN,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

DIRECTOR OF THE VDOC; FRED W. GREEN, Warden;
SAMUEL L. BATTS, Assistant Warden,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-95-963-2)


Submitted:   July 25, 1996                 Decided:   August 7, 1996


Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Keith Michael 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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