Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

50 F.3d 7

Docket Nos. 94-7343, 94-7464.

Naranjo v. Hill

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • Jose NARANJO, Plaintiff--v.Lieutenant HILL; Captain Meletis, Defendants--
  • Jose NARANJO, Plaintiff--v.A.D.C. MANASSAS MEDICAL SERVICES; Doctor Abdul; Lieutenant Colonel Hill, Defendants--

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: Jan. 19, 1995. Decided: Feb. 21, 1995.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1995-02-21

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 2001

3 district ·

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · Evans v. Croom · Charles Peacock v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1995-02-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Jose Naranjo, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

In these consolidated appeals, Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaints. The district court assessed filing fees in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the cases without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee orders. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court's orders. 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.

¶2

AFFIRMED.

/50/f3d/7 · .json · Public domain