Case Name: Johnathan Lee X SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; Mary Tarnowski; O. Odunsi; Willinda Purdie; T.D. Hatchett; Brenda Wolford; R. Reed; A. Wilson; Linda W. Mitchell; Jane Doe; C. Davis, Warden, K. Hamlin; Vincent M. Gore; Paul Ohai; Linda B. Nhambure; Earline Hill, V. Applewhite; William Henceroth; David Barnes; Powhatan Reception & Classification Center; Fred Schilling, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-04
Citations: 96 F. App'x 867
Docket Number: No. 03-7881
Parties: Johnathan Lee X SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; Mary Tarnowski; O. Odunsi; Willinda Purdie; T.D. Hatchett; Brenda Wolford; R. Reed; A. Wilson; Linda W. Mitchell; Jane Doe; C. Davis, Warden, K. Hamlin; Vincent M. Gore; Paul Ohai; Linda B. Nhambure; Earline Hill, V. Applewhite; William Henceroth; David Barnes; Powhatan Reception & Classification Center; Fred Schilling, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 867–868

Head Matter:
Johnathan Lee X SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; Mary Tarnowski; O. Odunsi; Willinda Purdie; T.D. Hatchett; Brenda Wolford; R. Reed; A. Wilson; Linda W. Mitchell; Jane Doe; C. Davis, Warden, K. Hamlin; Vincent M. Gore; Paul Ohai; Linda B. Nhambure; Earline Hill, V. Applewhite; William Henceroth; David Barnes; Powhatan Reception & Classification Center; Fred Schilling, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-7881.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 29, 2004.
Decided May 4, 2004.
Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Johnathan Lee X Smith appeals from the district court's orders dismissing without prejudice his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for failure to pay the filing fee, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Cow. Med. Servs., No. CA-03-665 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2003 & Nov. 17, 2003). 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