Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Smith v. Simpson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from George Travis Smith of a district court order. The district court had dismissed Smith's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action without prejudice for failure to pay filing fees or consent to partial payment from his prison account. The appeals court found that the district court's dismissal order was not appealable because Smith could refile his suit and comply with the fee requirements, making the dismissal interlocutory rather than final. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-08-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6103

    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 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from George Travis Smith of a district court order. The district court had dismissed Smith's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action without prejudice for failure to pay filing fees or consent to partial payment from his prison account. The appeals court found that the district court's dismissal order was not appealable because Smith could refile his suit and comply with the fee requirements, making the dismissal interlocutory rather than final. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Smith v. Simpson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from George Travis Smith of a district court order. The district court had dismissed Smith's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action without prejudice for failure to pay filing fees or consent to partial payment from his prison account. The appeals court found that the district court's dismissal order was not appealable because Smith could refile his suit and comply with the fee requirements, making the dismissal interlocutory rather than final. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-6103

    GEORGE TRAVIS SMITH,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SHERIFF SIMPSON; LOUDON COUNTY ADULT DETENTION
    CENTER,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (CA-04-625)

    Submitted:

    July 27, 2005

    Decided:

    August 2, 2005

    Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    George Travis Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    George Travis Smith appeals the district courts order
    dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) action for
    failure to either pay the filing fee or return the consent form
    permitting withdrawal from his prison account.

    Because Smith may

    refile his suit and either pay the required fee or consent to
    withdrawal in installments, the dismissal order is interlocutory
    and not appealable.

    See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local

    Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

    Accordingly, we

    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like