Court Opinion

ID: 9389407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:14.183339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.541518
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2238      Doc: 13         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2238

        TERRY R. CHAPMAN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        NISSAN CORPORATION,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01903-LKG)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 24, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Terry R. Chapman, Appellant Pro Se.     Steven Richard Freeman, FREEMAN
        ASSOCIATES, LLC, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2238       Doc: 13          Filed: 04/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Terry R. Chapman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint

        without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and a subsequent order denying Chapman’s

        postjudgment motion to reconsider that ruling. We have reviewed the record and find no

        abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion, reached in its initial dispositive order

        and reaffirmed in conjunction with the postjudgment motion, that Chapman failed to

        prosecute his case. See Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 625 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating

        standard of review and providing standard for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b));

        Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989) (observing that plaintiff’s failure to

        heed explicit warning of the consequences of failing to respond is an important

        consideration in determining whether district court abused its discretion). Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s orders. Chapman v. Nissan Corp., No. 1:21-cv-01903-LKG (D.

        Md. Sept. 6, 2022; Nov. 2, 2022). We deny Chapman’s motion to amend the caption in

        this case or remand.      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

                                                       2