William H. Glazebrook, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Dave Garraghty, Warden; Michael C. Sanberg, Warden,virginia State Penitentiary; Allyn R. Sielaff,virginia Department of Corrections,defendants-appellees, 801 F.2d 394 (4th Cir. 1986)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 801 F.2d 394 (4th Cir. 1986) Submitted Aug. 29, 1986. Decided Sept. 19, 1986

William H. Glazebrook, appellant pro se.

William W. Muse, Office of Attorney General, for appellees.

E.D. Va.


Before RUSSELL, ERVIN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.


William H. Glazebrook, a Virginia inmate, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Glazebrook filed numerous prolix paperwritings, which were exceedingly difficult to decipher. The court ordered Glazebrook to submit a clear and concise statement of his claims, so that the defendants might be informed of his specific allegations and respond. Instead of filing a short and plain statement, as is required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, Glazebrook submitted more supplemental claims, along with a motion for an extension of time. The district court denied Glazebrook's motion for an extension of time, and dismissed Glazebrook's complaint without prejudice for Glazebrook's failure to comply with a court order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint. The court gave Glazebrook, as a pro se litigant, an opportunity to particularize his claims. Instead of complying with this order, Glazebrook added more claims, muddling an already fatally deficient complaint. Glaze brook, of course, may prepare a concise complaint in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and refile. Because the dispositive is sues recently have been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgment below.