Court Opinion

ID: 9881794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:01:10.449702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.091047
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7063      Doc: 16         Filed: 10/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7063

        CHRISTOPHER J. ESTES,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD CLARKE,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01431-CMH-JFA)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Christopher J. Estes, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7063       Doc: 16          Filed: 10/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Christopher J. Estes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to grant

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. By prior order, the court denied Estes leave to proceed in

        forma pauperis and dismissed without prejudice his § 2254 petition with leave to submit

        the filing fee. Estes never paid the filing fee, and the district court denied Estes’ subsequent

        motion to grant his § 2254 petition. A district court may dismiss an action based on a

        litigant’s failure to comply with any order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Where a litigant has

        ignored an express warning that noncompliance with a court order will result in dismissal,

        the district court should dismiss the case. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th

        Cir. 1989). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order. Estes v. Clarke, No. 1:20-cv-01431-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va.

        filed Aug. 11, 2022 & entered Aug. 12, 2022). We deny a certificate of appealability as

        unnecessary, see Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). 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