0% found this document useful (0 votes)
13 views1 page

Vernon Eggelston v. Virginia Correctional Enterprises Department of Corrections Jim Dillon Charlie B. Hudson, 74 F.3d 1231, 4th Cir. (1996)

Vernon Eggelston filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Virginia Correctional Enterprises Department of Corrections and two individuals. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice when Eggelston failed to comply with a filing fee order assessed under Evans v. Croom. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order, finding no abuse of discretion.
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
13 views1 page

Vernon Eggelston v. Virginia Correctional Enterprises Department of Corrections Jim Dillon Charlie B. Hudson, 74 F.3d 1231, 4th Cir. (1996)

Vernon Eggelston filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Virginia Correctional Enterprises Department of Corrections and two individuals. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice when Eggelston failed to comply with a filing fee order assessed under Evans v. Croom. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order, finding no abuse of discretion.
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

74 F.

3d 1231
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished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of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the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.

Vernon EGGELSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,


v.
VIRGINIA CORRECTIONAL ENTERPRISES
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
Jim Dillon; Charlie B. Hudson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 95-7574.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Jan. 18, 1996.

Vernon Eggelston, Appellant Pro Se.


Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit
Judges.
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 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

You might also like