Filed: Mar. 15, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7545 RICHARD EDWARD BRILLHART; GARY L. SMITH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY; K. M. WHITE; UNKNOWN STAFF MEMBERS, at FCI Petersburg Medium; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00686-CMH-JFA) No. 08-7851 RICHARD EDWARD BRILLHART, Plaintiff - App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7545 RICHARD EDWARD BRILLHART; GARY L. SMITH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY; K. M. WHITE; UNKNOWN STAFF MEMBERS, at FCI Petersburg Medium; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00686-CMH-JFA) No. 08-7851 RICHARD EDWARD BRILLHART, Plaintiff - Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7545
RICHARD EDWARD BRILLHART; GARY L. SMITH,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY; K. M. WHITE; UNKNOWN STAFF MEMBERS,
at FCI Petersburg Medium; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00686-CMH-JFA)
No. 08-7851
RICHARD EDWARD BRILLHART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
K. DONALDSON,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:07-ct-03142-D)
Submitted: February 4, 2011 Decided: March 15, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Edward Brillhart, Gary L. Smith, Appellants Pro Se.
Christina Ann Kelley, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In Appeal No. 08-7851, Richard Edward Brillhart
appeals a district court order and judgment granting summary
judgment to the United States and dismissing his complaint. We
have consolidated that appeal with Appeal No. 08-7545, in which
Brillhart and Gary L. Smith appeal a district court order
dismissing their complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2006)
for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the records and
the district court’s orders and affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Brillhart v. United States, No. 5:07-
ct-03142-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2008); Brillhart v. Stansberry,
No. 1:08-cv-00686-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va. July 21, 2008). We grant
Brillhart’s motion, filed in each appeal, to “Run the PLRA
Payment Concurrent.” * Under Torres v. O’Quinn,
612 F.3d 237 (4th
Cir. 2010), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) (2006) authorizes that no
more than 20% can be taken from an inmate’s monthly income to
pay the filing fees regardless of how many appeals are pending.
Accordingly, we affirm the appeals and grant
Brillhart’s motion. The Warden of the Federal Correctional
Institution in Petersburg, Virginia, shall collect and remit to
the clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern
*
Gary L. Smith did not join in this motion.
3
District of Virginia, and the clerk shall accept, no more than
twenty percent of an inmate’s preceding monthly income or trust
account balance, as the case may be, as payment toward his
filing fees obligation. We deny without prejudice Smith’s
motion filed in Appeal No. 08-7545 seeking an order directing
filing fees be withdrawn consecutively and that he receive a
refund. Smith, currently incarcerated at the USP in Marion,
Illinois, should seek relief in the court in the district in
which he is confined. 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
4