Filed: Feb. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7230 EARLANDO HARRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARTISHA GREGG, Commonwealth’s Attorney; TIMOTHY FORBES, Hampton Police Detective, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00525-HEH-RCY) Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 26, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7230 EARLANDO HARRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARTISHA GREGG, Commonwealth’s Attorney; TIMOTHY FORBES, Hampton Police Detective, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00525-HEH-RCY) Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 26, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7230
EARLANDO HARRISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARTISHA GREGG, Commonwealth’s Attorney; TIMOTHY FORBES, Hampton
Police Detective,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00525-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 26, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Earlando Harrison, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Earlando Harrison appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to comply with the court’s prior order
directing him to either pay the filing fee or execute a consent form to authorize
installment payments. Subsequent to the entry of the district court’s dismissal order,
Harrison filed a consent form authorizing collection of fees, and the district court directed
that the complaint be refiled as a new civil action. Because a decision by this court
would not have “a practical effect on the outcome of this case,” we dismiss as moot
Harrison’s appeal. SAS Inst., Inc. v. World Programming Ltd.,
874 F.3d 370, 390 (4th
Cir. 2017), cert. denied,
139 S. Ct. 67 (2018). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2