Adrian Henry Sellers v. Nathaniel O. Boykin W.E. McMichael

905 F.2d 1531, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 8209, 1990 WL 73459
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 21, 1990
Docket89-6800
StatusUnpublished

This text of 905 F.2d 1531 (Adrian Henry Sellers v. Nathaniel O. Boykin W.E. McMichael) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adrian Henry Sellers v. Nathaniel O. Boykin W.E. McMichael, 905 F.2d 1531, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 8209, 1990 WL 73459 (4th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

905 F.2d 1531

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Adrian Henry SELLERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nathaniel O. BOYKIN; W.E. McMichael, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-6800.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 7, 1990.
Decided May 21, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (C/A No. 89-218-CRT-H)

Adrian Henry Sellers, appellant pro se.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Henry Sellers appeals the district court's dismissal of this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to pay the assessed filing fee.* Finding that the district court complied with the procedures approved in Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice, 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.

*

For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date appellant placed on the notice of appeal is the earliest date he would have given it to prison authorities

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
905 F.2d 1531, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 8209, 1990 WL 73459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adrian-henry-sellers-v-nathaniel-o-boykin-we-mcmichael-ca4-1990.