Case ID: f-appx_489/html/0749-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ronnie CLARKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AUTHORITY; Jack O. Lanier, DrPH, MHA, Fache, Current Chief Executive Officer; Charles D. Story, III, Current Human Resources Director; Michael Tutt, Current Retention and Recruitment Coordinator; All Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Members; Frances M. Christian, Ph. D., Chairperson, Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member; Wayne Blanks, Vice Chairperson, Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member; Tracey Causey, Treasury/Secretary, Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member; Henry F. Bulifant, IV, Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member; Linda Carr, Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member; Margaret Nimmo Crowe, Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member and Former Chairperson; Steven Danish, Ph.D, Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member; Andrew Epps, III, Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member; Samuel Lillard, Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member; William Mims, Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member; Napoleon Peoples, Ph.D., Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member; Rose Stith Singleton, Richmond Behavioral Health Authority Board Member, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-1959.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Nov. 26, 2012.
    Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Clarke appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action against Defendants because Clarke failed to file an amended complaint as ordered by the district court. Clarke has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Clarke’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order. See Clarke v. Richmond Behavioral Auth., No. 3:09-cv-00748-REPDJN (E.D.Va. July 27, 2012). 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.