William David Jones v. PETE HEGSETH, The Honorable, Secretary of Defense, United States Department of…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1398
WILLIAM DAVID JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PETE HEGSETH, The Honorable, Secretary of Defense, United States Department
of Defense, Defense Contract Management Agency; DEFENSE CONTRACT
MANAGEMENT AGENCY; DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief District Judge. (3:22-cv-00118-MHL)
Submitted: January 13, 2026 Decided: February 19, 2025
Before WILKINSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William David Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William David Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his amended complaint for failure to comply with the court’s earlier order directing him to
file a particularized amended complaint.* See Burrell v. Shirley, 142 F.4th 239, 249 (4th
Cir. 2025) (“A court may dismiss a case for failure to . . . comply with court orders. It can
do so pursuant to its inherent power to manage its own affairs.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
(authorizing district court to dismiss action for failure to comply with court order upon
motion of defendant). Having thoroughly reviewed the record and Jones’s arguments on
appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones’s
amended complaint. See Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 620 (4th Cir. 2019) (discussing
standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Jones v. Austin, No.
3:22-cv-00118-MHL (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2024). 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
* Because the district court did not grant Jones leave to amend, we have jurisdiction
to hear this appeal. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 791 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).

-- 2 of 2 --