William L. Patch v. United States of America Us Bureau of Prisons Carolyn v. Rickards, Warden

48 F.3d 1217, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11044, 1995 WL 106197
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 16, 1995
Docket94-7041
StatusPublished

This text of 48 F.3d 1217 (William L. Patch v. United States of America Us Bureau of Prisons Carolyn v. Rickards, Warden) 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
William L. Patch v. United States of America Us Bureau of Prisons Carolyn v. Rickards, Warden, 48 F.3d 1217, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11044, 1995 WL 106197 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

48 F.3d 1217
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

William L. PATCH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America; US Bureau of Prisons; Carolyn V.
Rickards, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-7041.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 19, 1995.
Decided Feb. 16, 1995.

William L. Patch, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his Federal Tort Claims Act* complaint. The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge who assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982). The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. The district court accepted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint. 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

*

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346 (1988)

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)
48 F.3d 1217, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11044, 1995 WL 106197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-l-patch-v-united-states-of-america-us-bure-ca4-1995.