Besthoff v. Rostafinski

Filing 920061107

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7221 ADAM BESTHOFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR ROSTAFINSKI, M.D.; MS. CAUL, Work Release; OFFICER AGUND, C/O; MR. HEDDINGER; COUNSELOR SYED; SERGEANT MCINTYRE; CORPORAL HARRESON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00271-REP) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 7, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adam Besthoff, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Adam Besthoff appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint because Besthoff failed to pay the initial partial filing fee. Because Besthoff may refile his suit and either pay the required fee or affirm he is unable, the dismissal order is interlocutory and not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Accordingly, we Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?