King Miguel Crayton v. Pamunkey Regional Jail

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1329 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1329 KING MIGUEL EDDIE CRAYTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PAMUNKEY REGIONAL JAIL; CHAVIS, S.G.T. Officer Correction, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:25-cv-00040-MHL) Submitted: May 15, 2025 Decided: May 20, 2025 Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. King Miguel Eddie Crayton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1329 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: King Miguel Eddie Crayton appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). After reviewing Crayton’s initial complaint, the district court ordered him to file an amended complaint that complied with five specific instructions about how to properly present his claims. The district court warned Crayton that failure to comply with this order would result in dismissal of his amended complaint. Crayton timely filed an amended complaint, but the district court found that the amended complaint did not fully comply with the earlier order. Because the district court gave Crayton clear and detailed instructions and warned him that failure to comply would lead to dismissal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Crayton’s amended complaint for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 625 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard). Accordingly, we affirm. Crayton v. Pamunkey Reg’l Jail, No. 3:25-cv-00040-MHL (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2025). 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