Adrian Rome v. Mack , 703 F. App'x 194 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7233
ADRIAN ROME,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MACK, Officer; FREY, Sgt. Officer,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
FRYE, SGT., H.R.R.J. 3/6; BOB MCCABE, Interim Superintendent,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00390-CMH-TCB)
Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: November 21, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adrian Rome, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Rome appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983(2012) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with its prior order directing
that he file a consent form with his amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A
plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order may warrant involuntary dismissal. Id.We review such a dismissal for abuse of discretion Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70
(4th Cir. 1978) (providing standard of review); see Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-
96 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting that dismissal is the appropriate sanction where litigant
disregarded court order despite warning that failure to comply with order would result in
dismissal).
Our review of the record reveals no evidence to establish that Rome filed a
consent form, as directed by the district court’s April 7, 2017, order, which specifically
informed Rome that failure to comply could result in dismissal. We thus discern no
abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to dismiss Rome’s complaint after he failed to
comply with this aspect of its order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order for
the reasons stated by the district court. Rome v. Mack, No. 1:17-cv-00390-CMH-TCB
(E.D. Va. filed Sept. 6, 2017 & entered Sept. 11, 2017). 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
3