Staley v. Martin

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 4, 2004
Docket04-6798
StatusUnpublished

This text of Staley v. Martin (Staley v. Martin) 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
Staley v. Martin, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6798

DANIEL L. STALEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID MARTIN, Lieutenant Unofficial Capacity; X EGGER, Ms., Nurse Unofficial Capacity; MICHAEL SHEEDY, Associate Warden, Official Capacity; JOHN OR JANE DOE, Mr., Captain, Unofficial Capacity; DAVID J. WEST, Sergeant, Unofficial Capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-04-920-9-23)

Submitted: September 3, 2004 Decided: October 4, 2004

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel L. Staley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Daniel L. Staley appeals the district court’s dismissal

of his complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).

Having reviewed the record and Staley’s informal brief on appeal,

we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing the complaint without prejudice, after Staley had been

warned of the consequences of failing to timely comply with an

order of the magistrate judge. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d

93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding district court’s dismissal

following explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of

discretion). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.

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

- 2 -

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

Related

Ballard v. Carlson
882 F.2d 93 (Fourth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Staley v. Martin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staley-v-martin-ca4-2004.