Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6477 RONALD WAYNE LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00894-JRS) Submitted: August 29, 2011 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Wayne Lewis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6477 RONALD WAYNE LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00894-JRS) Submitted: August 29, 2011 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Wayne Lewis,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6477
RONALD WAYNE LEWIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00894-JRS)
Submitted: August 29, 2011 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Wayne Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Wayne Lewis appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action
for failure to comply with an order of the magistrate judge to
complete an affidavit in support of his in forma pauperis
application. Lewis contends in his informal brief that he did
not receive the in forma pauperis application — and possibly the
magistrate judge’s order.
Because it is unclear from the record whether Lewis
received the magistrate judge’s order, we remand the case to the
district court for a determination of whether Lewis received the
order and, if not, to afford him the opportunity to comply with
the order. 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.
REMANDED
2