Filed: Jan. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7280 SHARON FALZONE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. S. JOHNS, Dr., Physician, Virginia Correctional Center for Women; VIRGINIA JOHNSON, Sgt. Unit 1, Virginia Correctional Center for Women; EDWARDS, Ms., Counselor Unit 1, Virginia Correctional Center for Women, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7280 SHARON FALZONE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. S. JOHNS, Dr., Physician, Virginia Correctional Center for Women; VIRGINIA JOHNSON, Sgt. Unit 1, Virginia Correctional Center for Women; EDWARDS, Ms., Counselor Unit 1, Virginia Correctional Center for Women, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-003..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7280
SHARON FALZONE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
S. JOHNS, Dr., Physician, Virginia Correctional Center for
Women; VIRGINIA JOHNSON, Sgt. Unit 1, Virginia Correctional
Center for Women; EDWARDS, Ms., Counselor Unit 1, Virginia
Correctional Center for Women,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00389-REP-MHL)
Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sharon Falzone, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sharon Falzone appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action based
on a plaintiff’s failure to comply with any order. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b). Where a litigant has ignored a district court’s
express warning that noncompliance will result in dismissal, it
is appropriate for the court to dismiss the case. See Ballard
v. Carlson,
882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). Having reviewed
the record in this case, we find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Falzone v. Johns, No. 3:14-cv-00389-REP-MHL (E.D. Va.
Aug. 19, 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