Court Opinion

ID: 9930918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:01:11.980051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:49.289730
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7114      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/06/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7114

        RODRIK CLARK,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        M. RAMIREZ, Sheriff Officer,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00443-DJN-MRC)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 6, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Rodrik Edwin Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7114       Doc: 11         Filed: 02/06/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Rodrik Edwin Clark appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint after Clark failed to pay the required initial partial filing fee. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

               Clark argues that he had consented to pay the initial partial filing fee, but the court

        failed to contact him to collect the fee from his inmate trust account. However, prior to

        dismissing the complaint, the court instructed Clark that it would contact his institution

        only after he paid the initial partial filing fee directly to the court and not from his inmate

        trust account or informed the court that he was unable to pay the partial fee. Moreover, the

        dismissal without prejudice means that Clark is free to refile. Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s order. Clark v. Ramirez, No. 3:23-cv-00443-DJN-MRC (E.D. Va. Oct. 19,

        2023). We deny Clark’s motion for a transcript at government expense. 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.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      2