UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-2216


KUANG BAO OU-YOUNG,

                     Plaintiff - Appellant,

              v.

JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.; ANTHONY M. KENNEDY; STEPHEN BREYER;
RUTH BADER GINSBURG; SAMUEL A. ALITO; MAXINE M. CHESNEY;
WILLIAM H. ORRICK; LUCY H. KOH; BETH LABSON FREEMAN; D.
LOWELL JENSEN; TERRENCE W. BOYLE; JOSEPH C. SPERO; SUSAN VAN
KEULEN; SUSAN Y. SOONG; ALEX G. TSE; BRIAN J. STRETCH; BARBARA
J. VALLIERE; DANIEL KALEBA; SHIAO LEE; MAIA PEREZ; DONALD M.
O’KEEFE; ROBERT D. PETTIT; MARC A. HARWELL; CHRIS YAMAGUCHI;
MARY GUTTORUSON; J. C. HOLLAND; T. SMITH; A. W. RUPSKA; L.
WHEAT; R. KOCH; JOSEPH S. ZONNO; L. GRADDY; CHARLES L. GRIFFIN;
J WIGGINS; JAMES MCNAIR THOMPSON,

                     Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-ct-03272-D)


Submitted: March 10, 2020                                       Decided: March 12, 2020


Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kuang Bao Ou-Young, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                            2
PER CURIAM:

       Kuang Bao Ou-Young appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2018) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s previous

order directing him to file a signed amended complaint and proposed summonses within

21 days of the court’s order. * See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We review a district court’s

dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. Simpson v. Welch, 

, 35-36

(4th Cir. 1990).    We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ou-Young v. Roberts,

Jr., No. 5:18-ct-03272-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2019). 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




       *
         Because the district court dismissed Ou-Young’s action “for procedural reasons
unrelated to the contents of the pleadings,” we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Goode
v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 

, 624 (4th Cir. 2015).

                                             3