Maurice Clack v. Rappahannock Regional Staff , 590 F. App'x 291 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7651
MAURICE CLACK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RAPPAHANNOCK REGIONAL STAFF, Pretrial Investigators; DONALD
SON, Corporal; RAPPAHANNOCK REGIONAL STAFF, Mail Clerks,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:13-cv-00196-HCM-TEM)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice Clack, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Clack appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action
for failure to follow the court’s earlier orders informing him
that he needed to pay the filing fee or sign a consent to
collection of fees form. The court’s May 29, 2013 order
specifically informed Clack that failure to comply could result
in dismissal. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of
discretion by the district court. Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d
69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978) (providing review standard); 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). Accordingly, we deny Clack’s motion
for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Clack v. Rappahannock Reg’l Staff, No.
2:13-cv-00196-HCM-TEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2014). 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