Melvin Hill v. Postal Service
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998812799-2]. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00525-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998893462]. Mailed to: Melvin Hill. [12-6377]
Appeal: 12-6377
Doc: 13
Filed: 07/12/2012
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6377
MELVIN HILL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:12-cv-00525-JFM)
Submitted:
June 28, 2012
Decided:
July 12, 2012
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-6377
Doc: 13
Filed: 07/12/2012
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to
pay the filing fees.
If a litigant has had three actions or
appeals
the
dismissed
on
ground
that
they
were
frivolous,
malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, the litigant may not proceed without prepayment of fees
unless
the
applicant
physical injury.”
is
under
“imminent
danger
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2006).
of
serious
Hill has had
three such prior dismissals: Hill v. Hughes, 1:00-cv-3204 (D.
Md. 2000), Hill v. Woods, 1:96-cv-3034 (D. Md. 1996), Hill v.
Harvey, 1:96-cv-3886 (D. Md. 1996).
Hill has not alleged that
he
serious
is
under
imminent
danger
of
physical
injury.
Therefore, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
and dismiss the appeal.
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?