Filed: Jul. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SYLVESTER A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 00-6406 CAROLYN CROSS, Warden, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-692-3) Submitted: July 10, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. _ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. _ COUNSEL Sylvester A. Ri
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SYLVESTER A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 00-6406 CAROLYN CROSS, Warden, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-692-3) Submitted: July 10, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. _ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. _ COUNSEL Sylvester A. Ric..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SYLVESTER A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 00-6406 CAROLYN CROSS, Warden, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-692-3) Submitted: July 10, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Sylvester A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Sylvester Antoine Richardson appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.A. ยง 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action for failure to pay the ini- tial filing fee. Because the record reflects that the fee was actually paid, the district court's order was in error. Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal and remand for further consideration of the case. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu- ment would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 2