Henry Pendleton Hamm, Jr. v. Edward K. Carpenter, Commonwealth of Goochland County, Virginia

917 F.2d 1301
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 5, 1990
Docket90-6144
StatusUnpublished

This text of 917 F.2d 1301 (Henry Pendleton Hamm, Jr. v. Edward K. Carpenter, Commonwealth of Goochland County, Virginia) 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
Henry Pendleton Hamm, Jr. v. Edward K. Carpenter, Commonwealth of Goochland County, Virginia, 917 F.2d 1301 (4th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

917 F.2d 1301
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Henry Pendleton HAMM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Edward K. CARPENTER, Commonwealth of Goochland County,
Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-6144.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 1990.
Decided Nov. 13, 1990.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-90-545A-R)

Henry Pendleton Hamm, Jr., appellant pro se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Henry Pendleton Hamm, Jr. 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 properly 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 deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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.

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

Related

Bepex Corporation v. Stouffer Foods Corporation
917 F.2d 1301 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)
Evans v. Croom
650 F.2d 521 (Fourth Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
917 F.2d 1301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-pendleton-hamm-jr-v-edward-k-carpenter-commo-ca4-1990.