William Jones v. Pete Hegseth

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: 24-1398
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1398 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/19/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1398

WILLIAM DAVID JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PETE HEGSETH, The Honorable, Secretary of Defense, United States Department of Defense, Defense Contract Management Agency; DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY; DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief District Judge. (3:22-cv-00118-MHL)

Submitted: January 13, 2026 Decided: February 19, 2025

Before WILKINSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William David Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1398 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/19/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

William David Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

his amended complaint for failure to comply with the court’s earlier order directing him to

file a particularized amended complaint. * See Burrell v. Shirley, 142 F.4th 239, 249 (4th

Cir. 2025) (“A court may dismiss a case for failure to . . . comply with court orders. It can

do so pursuant to its inherent power to manage its own affairs.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

(authorizing district court to dismiss action for failure to comply with court order upon

motion of defendant). Having thoroughly reviewed the record and Jones’s arguments on

appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones’s

amended complaint. See Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 620 (4th Cir. 2019) (discussing

standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Jones v. Austin, No.

3:22-cv-00118-MHL (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2024). 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 did not grant Jones leave to amend, we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 791 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).