Tucker v. Munn

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7547
CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LIEUTENANT MUNN,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
SERGEANT GRIMES; J. B. FRENCH, Warden; T.
ROYAL, Nurse; REGINA BROOKS, Parole Analyst;
PAROLE COMMISSION,
Defendants.
No. 96-6122
CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LIEUTENANT MUNN,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
SERGEANT GRIMES; J. B. FRENCH, Warden; T.
ROYAL, Nurse; REGINA BROOKS, Parole Analyst;
PAROLE COMMISSION,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge.
(CA-95-656-5-BR)
Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
No. 95-7547 affirmed and No. 96-6122 affirmed as modified by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 95-7547, Appellant appeals the district court's order
denying his myriad pre-trial motions. Finding no abuse of discre-
tion, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tucker v.
Munn, No. CA-95-656-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 7, 1995).
In No. 96-6122, Appellant appeals the district court's final
order dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The dis-
trict 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 when Appellant failed to comply with
the fee order. Again, we find no abuse of discretion. We modify the
district court's order to reflect that the dismissal was without
prejudice, and affirm as so modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1988).
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.
No. 95-7547 - AFFIRMED
No. 96-6122 - AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
3