James E. Clifton v. Virginia Department of Corrections David Williams Sheriff Faust Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Fourth Circuit

James E. Clifton v. Virginia Department of Corrections David Williams Sheriff Faust Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia

16 F.3d 408, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7259, 1994 WL 18115

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 25, 1994·No. 92-6489·Published

Opinion

16 F.3d 408
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James E. CLIFTON, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; David Williams;
Sheriff Faust; Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants Appellees.

No. 92-6489.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 31, 1993.
Jan. 25, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-91-642-AM)

James E. Clifton, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

Affirmed.

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

James E. Clifton filed suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 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

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

16 F.3d 408
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James E. CLIFTON, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; David Williams;
Sheriff Faust; Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants Appellees.

No. 92-6489.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 31, 1993.
Jan. 25, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-91-642-AM)

James E. Clifton, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

Affirmed.

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

James E. Clifton filed suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 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

James E. Clifton v. Virginia Department of Corrections David Williams Sheriff Faust Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 16 F.3d 408, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7259, 1994 WL 18115 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

16 F.3d 408 (James E. Clifton v. Virginia Department of Corrections David Williams Sheriff Faust Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related