OU YOUNG v. ROBERTS (2020)

Kuang Bao Ou-Young appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's previous order directing him to file a signed amended complaint and proposed summonses within 21 days of the court's order.^* See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We review a district court's dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35-36 (4th Cir. 1990). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ou-Young v. Roberts, Jr., No. 5:18-ct-03272-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2019). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Because the district court dismissed Ou-Young's action “for procedural reasons unrelated to the contents of the pleadings,” we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.