92 F3d 1180 McManus v. Arlington County Virginia M
92 F.3d 1180
Charles Patrick MCMANUS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Arlington County in the State of
Virginia; Sheriff Faust, Sheriff of Arlington County Jail
at Arlington; David M. Bogard, Director of Corrections at
the Arlington County Jail; Captain Pinson, Captain of the
Guard at Arlington County Jail; Captain Sites, Captain of
the Guard at Arling ton County Jail; John Doe, Officer,
Member of the Hearing Committee at the Arlington County
Jail; John Doe, Civilian member of the Hearing Committee at
the Arlington County Jail; Cor rectional Medical Systems,
Medical Contractor at the Arlington County Jail; Larry
Linton, Director of Correctional Medical Systems at
Arlington County Jail; John Doe, Doctor at the Arlington
County Jail; Jane Doe, Nurse at the Arlington County Jail;
John Doe, Head of Food Service at the Arlington County Jail;
John Doe, Food Service Manager at the Arlington County
Jail; John Doe, Dentist at the Arling ton County Jail, all
of the defendants are being sued in their official and
individual capacities, Defendants--Appellees.
No. 96-6802.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 25, 1996.
Decided Aug. 12, 1996.
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1004-2)
Charles Patrick McManus, Appellant Pro Se.
E.D.Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 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.