Gregory Richardson v. Rebecka Kelly, No. 11-6790 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6790 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REBECKA KELLY, Warden, sued in her individual and official capacities; WOODSON, Assistant Warden, sued in his official and individual capacities; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00229-REP) Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 22, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory A. Richardson appeals the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for failure to follow the court s order. Despite notice and warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal, Richardson failed to follow court s to complaint the the Accordingly, the order terms district directing of court his him to conform pre-filing dismissed the his injunction. action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. A district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with its orders, Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal appropriate sanction where litigant disregarded court order despite warning that failure to comply with order would result in dismissal), and we find no abuse of discretion Williams, standard). in 588 the F.2d district 69, 70 court s (4th Cir. dismissal. 1978) Davis (providing v. review Therefore, we deny Richardson s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Kelly, No. 3:08-cv-00229-REP (E.D. Va. May 13, 2011). legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.