Court Opinion

ID: 9381112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:00:54.111712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.326183
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2001      Doc: 11         Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2001

        VERNELL WILLIAMS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Agency; RENEE STRAUGHN, Army Official
        Capacity; LISA SHOLAR, Army Official Capacity; CHRISTINE WORMUTH,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00281-DJN)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Vernell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
        Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2001      Doc: 11         Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Vernell Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing his second amended

        complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

        P. 41(b). We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion.

        Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35-36 (4th Cir. 1990). Upon review, we discern no abuse

        of discretion by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

        district court in its Rule 41(b) analysis. Williams v. Dep’t of the Army, No. 3:20-cv-00281-

        DJN (E.D. Va. Aug. 22, 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