Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 F.3d 1231

Docket No. 95-7095.

Hicks-Bey v. Wright

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: December 14, 1995. Decided: January 11, 1996.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1996-01-11

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 · Gholson v. Rice Umt Ce Tac Tac

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1996-01-11

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Arlis Zarkiai Hicks-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

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

AFFIRMED

/74/f3d/1231 · .json · Public domain