Case Name: Minyard DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Milton Brown; Francisco Hernandez; Wayne McKinsey, Plaintiffs, v. David SIMONS, Superintendent; Edward Taylor, III, Assistant Superintendent; T.D. Hatchett, Major Chief of Security, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-01
Citations: 634 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 15-7661
Parties: Minyard DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Milton Brown; Francisco Hernandez; Wayne McKinsey, Plaintiffs, v. David SIMONS, Superintendent; Edward Taylor, III, Assistant Superintendent; T.D. Hatchett, Major Chief of Security, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 634
Pages: 396–396

Head Matter:
Minyard DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Milton Brown; Francisco Hernandez; Wayne McKinsey, Plaintiffs, v. David SIMONS, Superintendent; Edward Taylor, III, Assistant Superintendent; T.D. Hatchett, Major Chief of Security, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-7661.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2016.
Decided: March 1, 2016.
Minyard Cass Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Minyard Davis appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to comply with a court order. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a plaintiffs failure to comply with any order. Where a litigant has ignored a district court's express warning that noncompliance will result in dismissal, it is appropriate for the court to dismiss the case. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir.1989). Based on our review of the record in this case, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling. We therefore affirm the district court's order. See Davis v. Simons, No. 2:14-cv-00006-RAJ-DEM (E.D.Va. Sept. 15, 2015). 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.