Sharp v. Cawley ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7677
STEPHEN A. SHARP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LYNN CAWLEY, a/k/a Lynn Cawley Wilson; ANDREW
S. WILSON, individually and in his official
capacity; WILSON SERVICES; WAYNE A. CAWLEY;
DANA A. LAWHORNE, individually and in his
official capacity; S. RANDOLPH SENGEL, indi-
vidually and in his official capacity; KAREN
M. S. WALDEN, individually and in her official
capacity; PATRICK J. PRENDERGAST; JOHN E.
REGENTIN; JOSEPH A. CONDO, individually and in
his professional capacity; REES, BROOME &
DIAZ, PC; JOSEPH A. CONDO & ASSOCIATES, PC;
ROBERT C. DUNN, individually and in his pro-
fessional capacity; COHEN, DUNN & SINCLAIR,
PC; COHEN, DUNN & CURCIO, PC; MICHAEL D. RYAN,
individually and in his official capacity;
MARY L. HILL, individually and in her official
capacity; MARGARET A. DHILLON, individually
and in her official capacity; CORA LYNN C.
GOLDSBOROUGH, individually and in her capacity
as agent of the city of Alexandria; BARBARA
WARD, individually and in her official ca-
pacity; CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, Virginia; JOANNE
C. LINDENBERGER; SPRINGFIELD PSYCHOTHERAPY &
CONSULTATION CENTER; JUDITH M. GLASSER; SARAH
CAWLEY SHARP,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
Judge. (CA-96-337-A)
Submitted: September 15, 1998 Decided: August 12, 1999
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL,* Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen A. Sharp, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
*
Senior Judge Hall participated in the consideration of
this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The
decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 46(d).
2
PER CURIAM:
Stephen A. Sharp appeals a district court order dismissing his
action for failure to comply with a district court order directing
him to particularize his claims. Upon reviewing the record and the
district court’s opinion, we find the dismissal was proper.
Sharp’s allegations were repeated, rambling legalese and failed to
contain a short, plain statement of the claims against each
defendant. The district court gave him two opportunities to par-
ticularize his complaint and warned him that a failure to respond
could result in dismissal. When Sharp’s amended complaints did not
cure the defects, the court entered an order of dismissal.
Because Sharp failed to particularize his deficient complaint
in accordance with the court’s orders, dismissal was proper. See
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). We dis-
pense 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
3