Case Name: Maurice CLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAPPAHANNOCK REGIONAL STAFF, Pretrial Investigators; Donald Son, Corporal; Rappahannock Regional Staff, Mail Clerks, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-27
Citations: 590 F. App'x 291
Docket Number: No. 14-7651
Parties: Maurice CLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAPPAHANNOCK REGIONAL STAFF, Pretrial Investigators; Donald Son, Corporal; Rappahannock Regional Staff, Mail Clerks, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 590
Pages: 291–292

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.