Filed: Dec. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7183 MARK LOTT, a/k/a Mark Tillman Lott, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HOLLY SCATURO, SVPTP Director, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:13-cv-01491-RMG) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7183 MARK LOTT, a/k/a Mark Tillman Lott, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HOLLY SCATURO, SVPTP Director, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:13-cv-01491-RMG) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark L..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7183
MARK LOTT, a/k/a Mark Tillman Lott,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOLLY SCATURO, SVPTP Director,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-01491-RMG)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Lott, Appellant Pro Se. John Eric Kaufmann, LAW OFFICE OF
JOHN ERIC KAUFMANN, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Lott appeals from the district court’s order
adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for noncompliance
with a court order. A plaintiff’s failure to comply with 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 abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Lott v. Scaturo, No.
2:13-cv-01491-RMG (D.S.C. July 22, 2014). 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