The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-1329•King Miguel Eddie Crayton v. PAMUNKEY REGIONAL JAIL; CHAVIS, S.G.T. Officer Correction
25-1329Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 20, 2025
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.