Court Opinion

ID: 9365155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:53.034159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.502979
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6835      Doc: 15         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-6835

        JAMES E. ROSE, JR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant

                     v.

        SHERIFF DUANE LEWIS,

                            Defendant – Appellee,

                     and

        BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

                            Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00886-JMC)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James E. Rose, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6835      Doc: 15          Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               James E. Rose, Jr., a pretrial detainee, appeals the district court’s order dismissing

        without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with the magistrate

        judge’s order directing him to file an amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We

        review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. See Attkisson v.

        Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 625 (4th Cir. 2019). We have reviewed the record and discern no

        abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Rose’s motion to consolidate. 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