Court Opinion

ID: 9837993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:10.960467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.725242
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6429      Doc: 14         Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6429

        FREDERICK STINSON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; COMMISSARY & SECURITY,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00771-DJN-MRC)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Frederick Stinson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6429      Doc: 14          Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Frederick Stinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action

        without prejudice for failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order directing Stinson

        to submit certain documents within 30 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). After reviewing

        the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

        Stinson’s complaint. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding

        that district court did not abuse discretion when it dismissed case for failure to comply with

        prior order after explicitly warning that dismissal would result from failure to comply).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Stinson v. Va. Dep’t of Corr.,

        No. 3:22-cv-00771-DJN-MRC (E.D. Va. Apr. 5, 2023). 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