885 F. 2d 864 - Ganey v. Postel (Rn) Je M Hl Lc Jc L D J L
885 F2d 864 Ganey v. Postel (Rn) Je M Hl Lc Jc L D J L
885 F.2d 864
Unpublished Disposition
Edward A. GANEY, Jr., Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Billie POSTEL, (R.N.), J.E. Osborne, Steve Cummings, Clifton
Davenport, Doctor, Jay M. Barrington, H.L. Jackson, Mary
Wittpenn, Fran Minshaw, Billy Lloyd, L.C. Snead, J.C.
Harris, Jr., Joseph L. Hamilton, Earl D. Beshears, Aaron J.
Johnson, Attorney General of North Carolina, Jacob L.
Safron, Sylvia Thibaut, each in their official and or
individual/personal capacities, Defendants--Appellees.
No. 89-7118.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 30, 1989.
Decided Sept. 14, 1989.
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Edward A. Ganey, Jr., appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, SPROUSE, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Advertisement
Edward Ganey appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to pay the assessed filing fee. We find that the district court complied with the procedures approved in Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and did not abuse its discretion in declining to lower the fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2106, however, we modify the district court's judgment to reflect that the action is dismissed without prejudice. Ganey may refile his complaint upon payment of any new fee imposed.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed as modified.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
We grant Ganey's motion to supplement the record on appeal and have reviewed the submitted materials. Judges Widener and Wilkinson declined to recuse themselves from hearing this appeal. They have no information concerning the appeal not gathered from the record and have taken no position with respect to the appeal except in the course of their official duties