Case Name: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rebecka KELLY, Warden, sued in her individual and official capacities; Woodson, Assistant Warden, sued in his official and individual capacities; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-22
Citations: 459 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 11-6790
Parties: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Rebecka KELLY, Warden, sued in her individual and official capacities; Woodson, Assistant Warden, sued in his official and individual capacities; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Rebecka KELLY, Warden, sued in her individual and official capacities; Woodson, Assistant Warden, sued in his official and individual capacities; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 11-6790.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2011.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2011.
Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory A. Richardson appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for failure to follow the court's order. Despite notice and warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal, Richardson failed to follow the court's order directing him to conform his complaint to the terms of his pre-filing injunction. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. A district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with its orders, Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir.1989) (dismissal appropriate sanction where litigant disregarded court order despite warning that failure to comply with order would result in dismissal), and we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's dismissal. Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir.1978) (providing review standard). Therefore, we deny Richardson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Kelly, No. 3:08-cv-00229-REP (E.D.Va. May 13, 2011). 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.