Filed: Mar. 02, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7516 WILLIAM M. FINN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT SPIKER; SERGEANT HICKS; LIEUTENANT MOORE; CAPTAIN D. FLIPPEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-542-3) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7516 WILLIAM M. FINN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT SPIKER; SERGEANT HICKS; LIEUTENANT MOORE; CAPTAIN D. FLIPPEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-542-3) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7516 WILLIAM M. FINN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT SPIKER; SERGEANT HICKS; LIEUTENANT MOORE; CAPTAIN D. FLIPPEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-542-3) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Finn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William M. Finn appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to comply with a court order regarding filing fees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Finn v. Spiker, No. CA-05-542-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2005). We dis- pense 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 -
