Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • William Jefferson v. John I. Austin George Rickett Bobby Soles James Johnson William P. Rogers Edward W. Murray, 838 F.2d 466, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's dismissal without prejudice of William Jefferson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay a $20 partial filing fee. The district court properly followed the procedure for assessing partial fees. While the district court order did not specify, the appeals court noted the dismissal should be without prejudice, allowing Jefferson to refile his action later if he chooses. As the issues were already authoritatively decided, the appeals court denied in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1987-11-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 838 F.2d 466 Docket: 87-7589

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's dismissal without prejudice of William Jefferson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay a $20 partial filing fee. The district court properly followed the procedure for assessing partial fees. While the district court order did not specify, the appeals court noted the dismissal should be without prejudice, allowing Jefferson to refile his action later if he chooses. As the issues were already authoritatively decided, the appeals court denied in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views2 pages

    William Jefferson v. John I. Austin George Rickett Bobby Soles James Johnson William P. Rogers Edward W. Murray, 838 F.2d 466, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's dismissal without prejudice of William Jefferson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay a $20 partial filing fee. The district court properly followed the procedure for assessing partial fees. While the district court order did not specify, the appeals court noted the dismissal should be without prejudice, allowing Jefferson to refile his action later if he chooses. As the issues were already authoritatively decided, the appeals court denied in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    838 F.

    2d 466
    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.
    William JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    John I. AUSTIN; George Rickett; Bobby Soles; James
    Johnson; William P. Rogers; Edward W. Murray,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 87-7589.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Nov. 23, 1987.

    William Jefferson, pro se.


    William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
    Before SPROUSE, ERVIN, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    The district court dismissed William Jefferson's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for
    failure to pay an assessed partial filing fee of $20.00. We believe the district
    court properly complied with the procedure set forth in Evans v. Croom, 650
    F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982) in assessing this
    fee and in dismissing the action when Jefferson failed to execute a Consent for
    Withholding of Pay for Assessed Partial Fee.

    We note, however, that while not explicitly so designated in the district court's
    order, the dismissal should be considered without prejudice. Costello v. United
    States, 365 U.S. 265, 285 (1961). Jefferson retains the option of refiling this

    action at a later date, if he so desires.


    3

    Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we


    dispense with oral argument, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
    dismiss the appeal.

    DISMISSED.

    You might also like