Norman Ruffin v. (First Name Unknown) Calhoun


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00403-RGD-RJK. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000029119]. Mailed to: Norman Ruffin. [16-7275]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7275 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/23/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7275 NORMAN RUFFIN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. (FIRST NAME UNKNOWN) MEDICAL DOCTOR CALHOUN, NAME UNKNOWN) MEDICAL DOCTOR CLEMENTS, LVCC; UNKNOWN) MEDICAL DOCTOR LANGFORD, LVCC; UNKNOWN) MEDICAL NURSE HIGHTOWER, LVCC; UNKNOWN) MEDICAL DIRECTOR D. GOODE, LVCC, LVCC; (FIRST (FIRST NAME (FIRST NAME (FIRST NAME 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-00403-RGD-RJK) Submitted: February 14, 2017 Decided: February 23, 2017 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-7275 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/23/2017 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-00403-RGD- RJK (E.D. Va. Sept. 6, 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?