Anthony Bryant v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts
This text of Anthony Bryant v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts (Anthony Bryant v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts) 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.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1986 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1986
ANTHONY G. BRYANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS; HOMELAND SECURITY, ICE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00605-JD-MGB)
Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony G. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1986 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Anthony G. Bryant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis and requiring him to pay the full filing fee to proceed with his civil
action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). An order denying a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable interlocutory order. Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950) (per curiam). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Bryant v. Admin. Off. of the U.S.
Cts., No. 2:22-cv-00605-JD-MGB (D.S.C. Sept. 1, 2022). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Anthony Bryant v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-bryant-v-administrative-office-of-the-united-states-courts-ca4-2022.