Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07651/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07651-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7651

MAURICE CLACK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RAPPAHANNOCK REGIONAL STAFF, Pretrial Investigators; DONALD 

SON, Corporal; RAPPAHANNOCK REGIONAL STAFF, Mail Clerks,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (2:13-cv-00196-HCM-TEM)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Clack, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7651 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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

Appeal: 14-7651 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 2