Jeffrey Cohen v. Gregg Bealuk

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00470-ELH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999712456]. Mailed to: Jeffrey Brian Cohen CHESAPEAKE DETENTION FACILITY 401 East Madison Street Baltimore, MD 21202-0000. [15-1507]

Appeal: 15-1507

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1507

JEFFREY
COHEN,
Ventures, LLC,

Sole

Shareholder

of

RB

Entertainment

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GREGG S. BEALUK; JEFFREY MICELLI; MICHAEL J. JOHNSON; JOHN
TINSLEY; SEAN WRIGHT; MICHAEL ABRAM; PAVEL OLIVA,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-00470-ELH)

Submitted:

November 24, 2015

Decided:

December 4, 2015

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Cohen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1507

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Cohen appeals the district court’s orders requiring
him to supplement his complaint and dismissing his civil action
for noncompliance with that order.

A plaintiff’s failure to

comply with a court order may warrant involuntary dismissal.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

We review the dismissal of a complaint

under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion.

Ballard v. Carlson,

882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989); see Davis v. Williams, 588
F.2d

69,

70

(4th

Cir.

1978)

(discussing

consider in exercising discretion).
and find no abuse of discretion.

relevant

factors

to

We have reviewed the record

Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court.

Cohen v. Bealuk, No.

1:15-cv-00470-ELH (D. Md. filed Mar. 13, 2015 & entered Mar. 16,
2015; filed & entered Apr. 2, 2015).

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