Filed: Oct. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6798 DANIEL L. STALEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID MARTIN, Lieutenant Unofficial Capacity; X EGGER, Ms., Nurse Unofficial Capacity; MICHAEL SHEEDY, Associate Warden, Official Capacity; JOHN OR JANE DOE, Mr., Captain, Unofficial Capacity; DAVID J. WEST, Sergeant, Unofficial Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6798 DANIEL L. STALEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID MARTIN, Lieutenant Unofficial Capacity; X EGGER, Ms., Nurse Unofficial Capacity; MICHAEL SHEEDY, Associate Warden, Official Capacity; JOHN OR JANE DOE, Mr., Captain, Unofficial Capacity; DAVID J. WEST, Sergeant, Unofficial Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Du..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6798
DANIEL L. STALEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DAVID MARTIN, Lieutenant Unofficial Capacity;
X EGGER, Ms., Nurse Unofficial Capacity;
MICHAEL SHEEDY, Associate Warden, Official
Capacity; JOHN OR JANE DOE, Mr., Captain,
Unofficial Capacity; DAVID J. WEST, Sergeant,
Unofficial Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-04-920-9-23)
Submitted: September 3, 2004 Decided: October 4, 2004
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel L. Staley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel L. Staley appeals the district court’s dismissal
of his complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).
Having reviewed the record and Staley’s informal brief on appeal,
we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing the complaint without prejudice, after Staley had been
warned of the consequences of failing to timely comply with an
order of the magistrate judge. See Ballard v. Carlson,
882 F.2d
93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding district court’s dismissal
following explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of
discretion). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.
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 -