Case ID: f-appx_275/html/0239-02.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

Antonio BURTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENVILLE CLERK OF COURT; Solicitors Office, 13th Judicial Circuit; Dorothy A. Manigault, Attorney; Philpot Law Firm, PA; Robert M. Ariail, Solicitor; Joseph L. Savitz, III, Appellate Defense Chief Attorney; Wanda H. Carter, Deputy Chief; Henry McMaster, Attorney General; Karen Ratjan, Assistant Attorney General; Kenneth C. Gibson, PCR Attorney; Everett P. Godfrey, Jr., Esquire; Frank Epps; David Wagner, Esquire; David Ross, Esquire; Susannah Ross, Esquire; Edward E. Welmaker, Judge; Gary Michael Nettles, Judge, PCR; Edward W. Miller, Judge; Daniel E. Shearhouse; Supreme Court of South Carolina; Brenda F. Shealy; Ralph Anderson, Senator; Kay Patterson, Senator; South Carolina Department of Public Safety; Greenville County Investigations Division; O.B. Smith, Sergeant; United States Department of Justice; United States Postal Service; South Carolina State Conference; Marshall Clement Sanford, Jr., Governor; Lindsey Graham, United States Senator; Glenn F. McConnell; South Carolina Legislators; Appellate Defense South Carolina Office; Hollie M. Jenkins, Circuit Court Reporter; PCR Court Reporter; Greenville County Magistrate Court Judges; Kaye Gorenflo Hearn; Jean Toal, Supreme Court Judicial Department; James E. Moore; South Carolina Social Security Administration, Washington, DC, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-6243.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 24, 2008.
    Decided: April 30, 2008.
    Antonio Burts, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM:

Antonio Burts appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for noncompliance with court orders. A plaintiffs failure to prosecute or to comply with the federal procedural rules or an order of the court may warrant involuntary dismissal. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir.1989). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Burts v. Greenville Clerk of Court, No. 8:07-cv-03011-HMH-BHH (D.S.C. Dec. 19, 2007). We deny Burts’ motion for a jury trial. 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.