Silas Trowell, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Virginia Beach Correctional Center, City Jail, Defendant-appellee.silas Trowell, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Virginia Beach Correctional Center, City Jail, Defendant-appellee, 920 F.2d 927 (4th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 920 F.2d 927 (4th Cir. 1990) Submitted Dec. 3, 1990. Decided Dec. 14, 1990

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, District Judge. (CA-89-1794-AM)

Silas Trowell, Jr., appellant pro se.

E.D. Va.

DISMISSED.

Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Silas Trowell, Jr., filed two appeals concerning the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the assessed filing fee.

In No. 90-6600 Trowell appeals the district court's order assessing a partial filing fee. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final orders. A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all parties. It "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).

As the order appealed from is not a final order, it is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as to particular claims or parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), nor is the order appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Finally, the order is not appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

In No. 90-6601 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 dismissing the action without prejudice when Trowell failed to pay the assessed fee.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss both appeals. 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.