Christopher J. Estes v. Harold Clarke

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7063
CHRISTOPHER J. ESTES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01431-CMH-JFA)
Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher J. Estes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher J. Estes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to grant
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. By prior order, the court denied Estes leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismissed without prejudice his § 2254 petition with leave to submit
the filing fee. Estes never paid the filing fee, and the district court denied Estes’ subsequent
motion to grant his § 2254 petition. A district court may dismiss an action based on a
litigant’s failure to comply with any order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Where a litigant has
ignored an express warning that noncompliance with a court order will result in dismissal,
the district court should dismiss the case. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th
Cir. 1989). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order. Estes v. Clarke, No. 1:20-cv-01431-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va.
filed Aug. 11, 2022 & entered Aug. 12, 2022). We deny a certificate of appealability as
unnecessary, see Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). 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 of 2 --