Gregory Richardson v. Rebecka Kelly , 459 F. App'x 264 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6790
GREGORY A. RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REBECKA KELLY, Warden, sued in her individual and official
capacities; WOODSON, Assistant Warden, sued in his official
and individual capacities; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cv-00229-REP)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 22, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory A. Richardson appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for failure
to follow the court’s order. Despite notice and warning that
failure to comply would result in dismissal, Richardson failed
to follow the court’s order directing him to conform his
complaint to the terms of his pre-filing injunction.
Accordingly, the district court dismissed the action without
prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. A district court may dismiss an action for failure to
comply with its orders, Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96
(4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal appropriate sanction where litigant
disregarded court order despite warning that failure to comply
with order would result in dismissal), and we find no abuse of
discretion in the district court’s dismissal. Davis v.
Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978) (providing review
standard). Therefore, we deny Richardson’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Richardson v. Kelly, No. 3:08-cv-00229-REP (E.D. Va. May
13, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3