the form indicates that the request was denied for insufficient funds, it was never signed by prison personnel. And while the balance of Mr. Kennedy’s account was sufficient to cover the forty-eight dollar money order, his Inmate Banking History reflects no attempt to process the purported transaction. In short, there simply is no evidence to substantiate Mr. Kennedy’s claim of malfeasance on the part of CDOC officials. On the other hand, there is ample evidence demonstrating that the court gave Mr. Kennedy an adequate opportunity to comply with the fee order, and that he failed to do so within the time allowed. Given these circumstances, the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Kennedy’s claim comports with the requirements of the PLRA. See In re Smith, 114 F.3d 1247, 1251 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). We are therefore unable to say the district
recognizing that failure to pay an initial partial filing fee may result in dismissal of a prisoners action under the plra holding that a partial failure of consideration can support a claim for breach of contract holding that the defendants could not be held in contempt for failure to pay more than the fee cap amount because the court cannot order the djefendants to violate an act of congress to pay the total award recognizing impraeticality of requiring fee application before dismissal holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order