Case Name: Mohammed Moe MOOSAVI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; Department of Social Services; Department of Tax Administration; John Russ, Mr. Commissioner; Dean Sadredin, Mr. Step-son in Minnesota; Reycon Properties, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-23
Citations: 692 F. App'x 130
Docket Number: No. 16-2461
Parties: Mohammed Moe MOOSAVI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; Department of Social Services; Department of Tax Administration; John Russ, Mr. Commissioner; Dean Sadredin, Mr. Step-son in Minnesota; Reycon Properties, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 130–130

Head Matter:
Mohammed Moe MOOSAVI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; Department of Social Services; Department of Tax Administration; John Russ, Mr. Commissioner; Dean Sadredin, Mr. Step-son in Minnesota; Reycon Properties, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-2461
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 13, 2017
Decided: June 23, 2017
Mohammed Moe Moosavi, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mohammed Moe Moosavi appeals the district court's order dismissing his action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order to particularize his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Moosavi's complaint, given that nothing in his filings suggests a viable federal claim. However, based on the possibility that Moosavi did not receive the district court's order to particularize, see Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), and our consideration of the factors in Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989), we conclude that the dismissal should be without prejudice. We therefore deny Moosavi's motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court's judgment as modified to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. 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 AS MODIFIED