Case Name: Daniel L. STALEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David MARTIN, Lieutenant Unofficial Capacity; X Egger, Ms., Nurse Unofficial Capacity; Michael Sheedy, Associate Warden, Official Capacity; John or Jane Doe, Mr., Captain, Unofficial Capacity; David J. West, Sergeant, Unofficial Capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-04
Citations: 109 F. App'x 644
Docket Number: No. 04-6798
Parties: Daniel L. STALEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. David MARTIN, Lieutenant Unofficial Capacity; X Egger, Ms., Nurse Unofficial Capacity; Michael Sheedy, Associate Warden, Official Capacity; John or Jane Doe, Mr., Captain, Unofficial Capacity; David J. West, Sergeant, Unofficial Capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 644–644

Head Matter:
Daniel L. STALEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. David MARTIN, Lieutenant Unofficial Capacity; X Egger, Ms., Nurse Unofficial Capacity; Michael Sheedy, Associate Warden, Official Capacity; John or Jane Doe, Mr., Captain, Unofficial Capacity; David J. West, Sergeant, Unofficial Capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-6798.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 3, 2004.
Decided Oct. 4, 2004.
Daniel L. Staley, Appellant pro se.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Daniel L. Staley appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Having reviewed the record and Staley's informal brief on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without prejudice, after Staley had been warned of the consequences of failing to timely comply with an order of the magistrate judge. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir.1989) (holding district court's dismissal following explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion). Therefore, we affirm the district court's dismissal. 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