Saunders v. Philip Morris Inc ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-7257
    STEVEN FITZGERALD SAUNDERS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PHILIP MORRIS, INCORPORATED; R. J. REYNOLDS,
    INCORPORATED; REPUBLIC TOBACCO,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS;    JAMES B.
    FRENCH; L. P. TOBACCO COMPANY,
    Defendants.
    No. 96-7540
    STEVEN FITZGERALD SAUNDERS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS; JAMES B.
    FRENCH; PHILIP MORRIS, INCORPORATED; R. J.
    REYNOLDS, INCORPORATED; REPUBLIC TOBACCO,
    L. P. TOBACCO COMPANY,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-96-446-5-F)
    Submitted:   March 27, 1997               Decided:   April 2, 1997
    Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven Fitzgerald Saunders, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Steven F. Saunders appeals the district court's orders dis-
    missing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (1994) complaint and dismissing the
    Defendants that are private actors. 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 also affirm the district court order dismissing
    the Defendants that are not state actors on the reasoning of the
    district court. Saunders v. Philip Morris, Inc., Saunders v. Free-
    man, No. CA-96-446-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 2, 1996). We deny Saunders'
    motions for production of documents and delay of judgment. We dis-
    pense 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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-7257

Filed Date: 4/2/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021