Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Peter Emmanuel Bernard, Plaintiff-appellant, v. L. Spears, Chairman; Sergeant J. Berry; Frank Mardavich;david A. Garraghty; Kenny L. Osborne,defendants-appellees.peter Emmanuel Bernard, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kenny L. Osborne; Frank Mardavich; Sergeant J. Berry;counselor C. Fowler, Defendants-appellees.peter Emmanuel Bernard, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Edward W. Murray; Frank Mardavich; K.l. Osborne; Davidgarraghty; Sergeant C. Watson, Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 955 F.2d 40
Submitted Feb. 3, 1992.Decided Feb. 13, 1992
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond, Nos. CA-91-610-A-R, CA-91-609-A-R, CA-91-607-A-R, James R. Spencer, District Judge.
Peter Emmanuel Bernard, appellant pro se.
E.D.Va.
DISMISSED.
Before WIDENER, HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Peter Emmanuel Bernard filed these suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis.* The district court assessed filing fees in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed these cases without prejudice when Plaintiff failed to comply with the fee orders. Plaintiff appeals. Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals. 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.