Filed: Aug. 02, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6103 GEORGE TRAVIS SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF SIMPSON; LOUDON COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-04-625) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Georg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6103 GEORGE TRAVIS SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF SIMPSON; LOUDON COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-04-625) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6103
GEORGE TRAVIS SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SHERIFF SIMPSON; LOUDON COUNTY ADULT DETENTION
CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-04-625)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Travis Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George Travis Smith appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for
failure to either pay the filing fee or return the consent form
permitting withdrawal from his prison account. Because Smith may
refile his suit and either pay the required fee or consent to
withdrawal in installments, the dismissal order is interlocutory
and not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -