Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1034 JOY NEWSOME, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THOMPSON CHILD & FAMILY FOCUS; KRIS PARKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00064-GCM) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1034 JOY NEWSOME, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THOMPSON CHILD & FAMILY FOCUS; KRIS PARKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00064-GCM) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1034
JOY NEWSOME,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
THOMPSON CHILD & FAMILY FOCUS; KRIS PARKER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00064-GCM)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joy Newsome, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Bierenbaum, Stacy
Kaplan Wood, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joy Newsome appeals the district court’s order
dismissing with prejudice her employment discrimination action
for noncompliance with a court order. A plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the federal procedural rules or an order of the
court may warrant involuntary dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b) for
abuse of discretion. Ballard v. Carlson,
882 F.2d 93, 95-96
(4th Cir. 1989). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Newsome v. Thompson Child & Family
Focus, No. 3:11-cv-00064-GCM (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2011). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2