James M. Debardeleben v. Richard G. Kiekbusch, Superintendent Norwood C. Walls, Jail Officer

862 F.2d 869, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14992, 1988 WL 124970
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 10, 1988
Docket88-7214
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 862 F.2d 869 (James M. Debardeleben v. Richard G. Kiekbusch, Superintendent Norwood C. Walls, Jail Officer) 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
James M. Debardeleben v. Richard G. Kiekbusch, Superintendent Norwood C. Walls, Jail Officer, 862 F.2d 869, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14992, 1988 WL 124970 (4th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

862 F.2d 869
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James M. DeBARDELEBEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Richard G. KIEKBUSCH, Superintendent; Norwood C. Walls,
Jail Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-7214.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 30, 1988.
Decided: Nov. 10, 1988.

James M. DeBardeleben, appellant pro se.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

James M. DeBardeleben appeals the district court's dismissal of his 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 arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

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

Related

Debardeleben v. Pugh
85 F. App'x 142 (Tenth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
862 F.2d 869, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14992, 1988 WL 124970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-m-debardeleben-v-richard-g-kiekbusch-superin-ca4-1988.