Taylor v. Buckner

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7864 JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY BUCKNER, SR., Service Distributing, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. No. 95-7865 JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. CRANDALL, (C.O.); LIEUTENANT WILCOX, (O.I.C.); JOHN R. DEWAN, Superintendent; WESTERN TIDEWATER REGIONAL JAIL, Defendants - Appellees. No. 95-7866 JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. R. SMITH, R.N. (at D.M.C.C.); ALTON BASKER- VILLE, Warden; DEEP MEADOW CORRECTIONAL CENTER MEDICAL; DEEP MEADOW CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. No. 95-7867 JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DENNIS WAYNE SPINDLE; STAFFORD COUNTY; J. T. DONNELLY, JR., Captain (Chief Jailor); R. M. WILLIAMS, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-95-395-2, CA-95-397-2, CA-95-398-2, CA-95-399-2) Submitted: March 19, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 2 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Alan Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 3 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Alan Taylor appeals from district court orders re- fusing to modify orders imposing partial filing fees. Although the orders are appropriately before us, see Roberts v. United States, 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950) (orders denying in forma pauperis status immediately appealable), we find the appeals meritless. We, there- fore, deny in forma pauperis status and dismiss the appeals. The district court assessed partial filing fees in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982). The fees imposed in each case were less than the twenty percent of account deposits allowed by local rule. E.D. Va. R. 28(C)(4). The fees were, therefore, appropriate. Taylor did not pay the fees and objected to the amounts, citing his personal hygiene spending needs and his several federal lawsuits as bases for lowering the fees. The district court did not abuse its discre- tion in finding the cited bases inadequate to necessitate modifi- cation. See Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 954 n.3 (4th Cir. 1995). We deny informa pauperis status and dismiss the appeals. We also deny Taylor's motions for appointment of counsel and to remand the case. 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 4