Maurice Clack v. Rappahannock Regional Staff, No. 14-7651 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7651 MAURICE CLACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAPPAHANNOCK REGIONAL STAFF, Pretrial Investigators; DONALD SON, Corporal; RAPPAHANNOCK REGIONAL STAFF, Mail Clerks, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:13-cv-00196-HCM-TEM) Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Clack, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maurice Clack appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to follow the court’s earlier orders informing him that he needed collection of to pay fees the form. filing The fee or court’s sign May a consent 29, 2013 to order specifically informed Clack that failure to comply could result in dismissal. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978) (providing review standard); see Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95–96 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting that dismissal is the appropriate sanction where litigant disregarded court order despite warning that failure to comply with order would result in dismissal). Accordingly, we deny Clack’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clack v. Rappahannock Reg’l 2:13-cv-00196-HCM-TEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2014). Staff, No. 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 2

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.