Filed: Apr. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7717 TIMOTHY A. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. W. MITCHELL, Superintendent, Haynesville Correctional Unit #17; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:11-cv-00594-JRS) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7717 TIMOTHY A. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. W. MITCHELL, Superintendent, Haynesville Correctional Unit #17; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:11-cv-00594-JRS) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7717 TIMOTHY A. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. W. MITCHELL, Superintendent, Haynesville Correctional Unit #17; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:11-cv-00594-JRS) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy A. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy A. Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil suit because Jones did not return a completed in forma pauperis affidavit form and consent to collection of fees form and he did not pay the statutory filing fee. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Mitchell, No. 3:11-cv-00594-JRS (E.D. Va. Nov. 18, 2011). 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
