Maurice Clack v. Rappahannock Regional Staff

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999479329-2] Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00196-HCM-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999517907]. Mailed to: Maurice Clack. [14-7651]

Appeal: 14-7651

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7651

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

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

collection

of

to

pay

fees

the

form.

filing
The

fee

or

court’s

sign

May

a

consent

29,

2013

to

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

2:13-cv-00196-HCM-TEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2014).

Staff,

No.

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