Norman Ruffin v. (First Name Unknown) Calhoun
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00186-RGD-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999954378]. Mailed to: Norman Ruffin. [16-6954]
Appeal: 16-6954
Doc: 10
Filed: 10/25/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6954
NORMAN RUFFIN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
(FIRST NAME UNKNOWN) CALHOUN, Medical Doctor, LVCC; (FIRST
NAME UNKNOWN)
CLEMENTS, Medical Doctor, LVCC; (FIRST NAME
UNKNOWN)
LANGFORD, Medical Doctor, LVCC; (FIRST NAME
UNKNOWN)
HIGHTOWER, Medical Nurse, LVCC; (FIRST NAME
UNKNOWN) D. GOODE, Medical Director, LVCC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:16-cv-00186-RGD-DEM)
Submitted:
October 17, 2016
Decided:
October 25, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norman Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6954
Doc: 10
Filed: 10/25/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Norman Ruffin appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his
42
U.S.C.
§ 1983
(2012)
complaint
failure to comply with its prior order.
41(b).
without
prejudice
for
See Fed. R. Civ. P.
We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b)
for abuse of discretion.
(4th Cir. 1989).
of discretion.
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95
We have reviewed the record and find no abuse
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court.
Ruffin v. Calhoun, No. 2:16-cv-00186-RGD-
DEM (E.D. Va. June 10, 2016).
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?