Case ID: f-appx_590/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maurice CLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAPPAHANNOCK REGIONAL STAFF, Pretrial Investigators; Donald Son, Corporal; Rappahannock Regional Staff, Mail Clerks, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-7651.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 22, 2015.
    Decided: Jan. 27, 2015.
    Maurice Clack, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Clack appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to follow the court’s earlier orders informing him that he needed to pay the filing fee or sign a consent to collection of fees form. The court’s May 29, 2013 order specifically informed Clack that failure to comply could result in dismissal. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir.1978) (providing review standard); see Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting that dismissal is the appropriate sanction where litigant disregarded court order despite warning that failure to comply with order would result in dismissal). Accordingly, we deny Clack’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clack v. Rappahannock Reg’l Staff, No. 2:13-cv-00196-HCM-TEM (E.D.Va. Oct. 17, 2014). 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.