Case Name: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James SISK, Manager/Compute; Gene Johnson, Director; Robert McDonald, Attorney General; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees; Gregory A. Richardson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Sisk, Manager/Compute; Gene Johnson, Director; Robert McDonald, Attorney General; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees; Gregory A. Richardson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Sisk, Manager/Compute; Gene Johnson, Director; Robert McDonald, Attorney General; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-19
Citations: 300 F. App'x 216
Docket Number: Nos. 08-6050, 08-6769
Parties: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James SISK, Manager/Compute; Gene Johnson, Director; Robert McDonald, Attorney General; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees. Gregory A. Richardson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Sisk, Manager/Compute; Gene Johnson, Director; Robert McDonald, Attorney General; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 300
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James SISK, Manager/Compute; Gene Johnson, Director; Robert McDonald, Attorney General; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees. Gregory A. Richardson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Sisk, Manager/Compute; Gene Johnson, Director; Robert McDonald, Attorney General; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 08-6050, 08-6769.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 13, 2008.
Decided: Nov. 19, 2008.
Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gregory A. Richardson appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) for failure to pay his filing fee, and the order denying his motion to reconsider under Fed.R.CivJP. 60(b). We have reviewed the orders and record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Richardson v. Sisk, No. 3:07-cv00488-REP (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 2007; Apr. 28, 2008). 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.
AFFIRMED.