Terry Chapman v. Nissan Corporation, No. 22-2238 (4th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-2238 TERRY R. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NISSAN CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01903-LKG) Submitted: April 20, 2023 Decided: April 24, 2023 Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry R. Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Richard Freeman, FREEMAN ASSOCIATES, LLC, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry R. Chapman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and a subsequent order denying Chapman’s postjudgment motion to reconsider that ruling. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion, reached in its initial dispositive order and reaffirmed in conjunction with the postjudgment motion, that Chapman failed to prosecute his case. See Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 625 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard of review and providing standard for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989) (observing that plaintiff’s failure to heed explicit warning of the consequences of failing to respond is an important consideration in determining whether district court abused its discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Chapman v. Nissan Corp., No. 1:21-cv-01903-LKG (D. Md. Sept. 6, 2022; Nov. 2, 2022). We deny Chapman’s motion to amend the caption in this case or remand. 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.