Murdock Ready Mixed Concrete v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America) Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-1714
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1714 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1714

MURDOCK READY MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RITCHIE BROS. AUCTIONEERS (AMERICA) INC.; RB GLOBAL INC.; RITCHIE BROTHERS, INC.; BRIAN PARKS, Official Capacity; DAVID RITCHIE, Official Capacity; JIM KESSLER, Official Capacity; EMMA TUCKLEY, Official Capacity; ANN FANDOOZL, Official Capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:24-cv-00278-M-BM)

Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 27, 2026

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Sterling Murdock, III, Appellant Pro Se. Alexandra Harrington Austin, MAYNARD NEXSEN PC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1714 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Murdock Ready Mixed Concrete Company (“Murdock”) appeals the district court’s

order dismissing its pro se complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with a court

order directing it to obtain counsel. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Murdock’s complaint without

prejudice for failure to comply with this order. * See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-

96 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating standard of review and explaining that when a litigant ignores

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

district court should dismiss the case).

We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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

* To the extent Murdock argues that the district court erred in directing it to obtain counsel, we conclude that Murdock forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in the district court, and Murdock does not establish exceptional circumstances warranting our consideration of this argument for the first time on appeal. See Garey v. James S. Farrin, P.C., 35 F.4th 917, 928 (4th Cir. 2022).