Sliwa v. Mapp

37 F.3d 1495, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34886, 1994 WL 558337
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 13, 1994
Docket94-6773
StatusPublished

This text of 37 F.3d 1495 (Sliwa v. Mapp) 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
Sliwa v. Mapp, 37 F.3d 1495, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34886, 1994 WL 558337 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

37 F.3d 1495
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

David Steven SLIWA, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
David K. MAPP, Jr., Sheriff; Cody Benn, Classification
Officer; Colonel Ellis; Ms. Frank-David, Medical Director;
Dr. Clardy, Jail Physician; Fred W. Green, Warden; Julie
Lafoon, Medical Director; E. C. Morris, Deputy Director of
The Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6773.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted August 25, 1994.
Decided October 13, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-93-1197-2)

David Steven Sliwa, Appellant Pro Se.

Before RUSSELL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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 Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, 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.

DISMISSED

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

Related

Evans v. Croom
650 F.2d 521 (Fourth Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 F.3d 1495, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34886, 1994 WL 558337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sliwa-v-mapp-ca4-1994.