John Bernice Vester v. B. Norris Vassar Louis B. Cei R. Forrest Powell Linda Carlson

822 F.2d 56, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7891, 1987 WL 37847
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 23, 1987
Docket87-7579
StatusUnpublished

This text of 822 F.2d 56 (John Bernice Vester v. B. Norris Vassar Louis B. Cei R. Forrest Powell Linda Carlson) 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
John Bernice Vester v. B. Norris Vassar Louis B. Cei R. Forrest Powell Linda Carlson, 822 F.2d 56, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7891, 1987 WL 37847 (4th Cir. 1987).

Opinion

822 F.2d 56
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
John Bernice VESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
B. Norris VASSAR; Louis B. Cei; R. Forrest Powell; Linda
Carlson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-7579.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 29, 1987.
Decided June 23, 1987.

Before PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

John Bernice Vester, appellant pro se.

PER CURIAM:

John B. Vester appeals from the district court's order imposing 90% of the statutory filing fee. Vester's inmate account deposits for the six months preceding the filing of his complaint plus the balance at the beginning of this period add up to $1,848.30. As 15% of this figure exceeds the statutory filing fee, the district court ordered Vester to pay the statutory filing fee.

Vester disputed the way the court assessed the filing fee, and argued, among other things, that his other litigation had reduced his available funds. The district court accommodated Vester's financial circumstances by reducing the statutory fee by 10%.

The district court fully complied with the procedures approved by this court in Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982). The Evans standard is consistent with the rule of Adkins v. E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), that a litigant need not be absolutely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's action, we affirm the judgment of dismissal. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Adkins v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
335 U.S. 331 (Supreme Court, 1948)
Evans v. Croom
650 F.2d 521 (Fourth Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
822 F.2d 56, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7891, 1987 WL 37847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-bernice-vester-v-b-norris-vassar-louis-b-cei--ca4-1987.