Court Opinion

ID: 9961138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 21:01:30.905762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:21.901587
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7162      Doc: 9         Filed: 04/16/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7162

        AARON LANCE STEPHEN,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        GERALD BAKER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SANTOS; CORRECTIONAL
        OFFICER ISSAC; JUAN ISIDRO COLLADO,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:22-ct-03161-M)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                           Decided: April 16, 2024

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Aaron Lance Stephen, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7162      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/16/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Aaron Lance Stephen appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

        his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Stephen failed to amend his complaint by the deadline

        provided by the court. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

        dismissing the complaint without prejudice after Stephen had been warned of the

        consequences of failing to timely comply with the court’s order. See Ballard v. Carlson,

        882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding district court’s dismissal following explicit and

        reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion). We have reviewed the record and find

        no reversible error. Stephen v. Baker, No. 5:22-ct-03161-M (E.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 2023). We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    2