Newsome v. Thompson Child & Family Focus

Fourth Circuit

Newsome v. Thompson Child & Family Focus

470 F. App'x 173

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 2012

DocketNo. 12-1034

StatusPublished

This text of 470 F. App'x 173 (Newsome v. Thompson Child & Family Focus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Newsome v. Thompson Child & Family Focus, 470 F. App'x 173 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Joy Newsome appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice her employment discrimination action for noncompliance with a court order. A plaintiffs failure to comply with the federal procedural rules or 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 reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Newsome v. Thompson Child & Family Focus, No. 3:11-cv-00064-GCM (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Joy Newsome appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice her employment discrimination action for noncompliance with a court order. A plaintiffs failure to comply with the federal procedural rules or 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 reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Newsome v. Thompson Child & Family Focus, No. 3:11-cv-00064-GCM (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 F. App'x 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newsome-v-thompson-child-family-focus-ca4-2012.