Richard Beall, Jr. v. Gov. Lawrence Hogan


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000088689-2] Originating case number: 8:17-cv-00340-GJH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000128891]. Mailed to: Richard Beall, Jr.. [17-6626]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6626 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6626 RICHARD HOWARD BEALL, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GOVERNOR LAWRENCE HOGAN; 2 EAST STAFF; PAUL VINCE; TOM LEWIS; DIRECTOR ROBINSON; ADAM HOCKNER, Witness Defendant; JENAVIVE; PETER IKE; PETER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-00340-GJH) Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: August 1, 2017 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Howard Beall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6626 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Richard Howard Beall, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s prior order directing him to file an amended complaint particularizing his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Beall v. Hogan, No. 8:17-cv-00340-GJH (D. Md. filed May 2, 2017 & entered May 3, 2017). 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?