LuLu Girma v. U. S. Equal Employment

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999952411-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00406-LO-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000031015]. Mailed to: Girma. [16-1973]

Appeal: 16-1973

Doc: 16

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1973

LULU GIRMA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge.
(1:16-cv-00406-LO-IDD)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

LuLu Girma, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1973

Doc: 16

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
LuLu Girma appeals from the district court’s order dismissing
his

employment

discrimination

complaint

without

prejudice

for

failing to comply with the court’s prior order directing him to
pay the required filing fee. *
no reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by
the district court.

Girma v. U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n,

No. 1:16-cv-00406-LO-IDD (E.D. Va. filed July 26, 2016; entered
July 27, 2016).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

*

We conclude that the district court’s order is final and
appealable because the defect identified by the district court
must be cured by something more than an amendment to the
allegations in the complaint. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid
Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015).
2