Filed: Aug. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6618 RICHARD RONALD KPORLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. ROBINSON, Manassas A.O.C. Correction Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-973) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rich
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6618 RICHARD RONALD KPORLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. ROBINSON, Manassas A.O.C. Correction Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-973) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richa..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6618 RICHARD RONALD KPORLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. ROBINSON, Manassas A.O.C. Correction Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-973) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Ronald Kporlor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Richard Ronald Kporlor appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for failure to comply with the filing fee order and denying his motion construed as a motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Kporlor v. Robinson, No. CA-03-973 (E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2004 & Mar. 23, 2004). 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 -
