Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

996 F.2d 1212

Docket No. 93-6415.

Pruitt v. Marshall Md

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: June 7, 1993. Decided: June 28, 1993.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1993-06-28

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 · United States of America v. Alvis III

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1993-06-28

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-92-1038-2)

Gary M. Pruitt, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

¶1

Gary M. Pruitt filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 Plaintiff failed to comply with the fee order. Plaintiff appeals. 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

/996/f2d/1212 · .json · Public domain