Court Opinion

ID: 9381451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:03.108369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.648203
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6552      Doc: 9        Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6552

        WINSTON NAJEE REED,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        LIEUTENANT T. B. SMITH; J. CARICO, Unit Manager,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:22-cv-00169-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Winston NaJee Reed, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6552      Doc: 9        Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Winston NaJee Reed appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

        Reed’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with its order to provide financial

        documentation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). A district court has the authority to

        dismiss an action for a party’s failure to comply with its orders, and we review a court’s

        decision to dismiss for failure to comply for an abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

        41(b); Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 620, 625-27 (4th Cir. 2019). We have reviewed

        the record and discern no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        order. Reed v. Smith, No. 7:22-cv-00169-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2022). 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