Christopher Estes v. Harold Clarke

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 2, 2023
• Docket: 22-7063
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7063 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7063

CHRISTOPHER J. ESTES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01431-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher J. Estes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7063 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher J. Estes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to grant

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. By prior order, the court denied Estes leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismissed without prejudice his § 2254 petition with leave to submit

the filing fee. Estes never paid the filing fee, and the district court denied Estes’ subsequent

motion to grant his § 2254 petition. A district court may dismiss an action based on a

litigant’s failure to comply with any order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Where a litigant has

ignored an express warning that noncompliance with a court order will result in dismissal,

the district court should dismiss the case. See 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 the district court’s order. Estes v. Clarke, No. 1:20-cv-01431-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va.

filed Aug. 11, 2022 & entered Aug. 12, 2022). We deny a certificate of appealability as

unnecessary, see Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). 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