Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gregory Richardson v. Rebecka Kelly, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    38 views3 pages
    Gregory Richardson filed a Section 1983 action that was dismissed by the district court for failure to comply with a court order. Richardson did not conform his complaint to the terms of a pre-filing injunction as directed. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to follow the court's order, despite being warned that noncompliance would result in dismissal. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-12-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6790

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Gregory Richardson filed a Section 1983 action that was dismissed by the district court for failure to comply with a court order. Richardson did not conform his complaint to the terms of a pre-filing injunction as directed. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to follow the court's order, despite being warned that noncompliance would result in dismissal. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    38 views3 pages

    Gregory Richardson v. Rebecka Kelly, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Gregory Richardson filed a Section 1983 action that was dismissed by the district court for failure to comply with a court order. Richardson did not conform his complaint to the terms of a pre-filing injunction as directed. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to follow the court's order, despite being warned that noncompliance would result in dismissal. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-6790

    GREGORY A. RICHARDSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    REBECKA KELLY, Warden, sued in her individual and official
    capacities; WOODSON, Assistant Warden, sued in his official
    and individual capacities; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:08-cv-00229-REP)

    Submitted:

    December 20, 2011

    Decided:

    December 22, 2011

    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory

    A.

    Richardson

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) action for failure


    to follow the courts order.

    Despite notice and warning that

    failure to comply would result in dismissal, Richardson failed


    to

    follow

    complaint

    the

    courts

    to

    the

    Accordingly,

    the

    order

    terms

    district

    directing

    of
    court

    his

    him

    to

    conform

    pre-filing

    dismissed

    the

    his

    injunction.

    action

    without

    prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).


    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
    error.

    A district court may dismiss an action for failure to

    comply with its orders, Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96
    (4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal appropriate sanction where litigant
    disregarded court order despite warning that failure to comply
    with order would result in dismissal), and we find no abuse of
    discretion
    Williams,
    standard).

    in
    588

    the
    F.2d

    district
    69,

    70

    courts

    (4th

    Cir.

    dismissal.
    1978)

    Davis

    (providing

    v.

    review

    Therefore, we deny Richardsons motion to proceed in

    forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district
    court.

    Richardson v. Kelly, No. 3:08-cv-00229-REP (E.D. Va. May

    13, 2011).
    legal

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like