Murdock Ready Mixed Concrete Company v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (america) Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1714
MURDOCK READY MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RITCHIE BROS. AUCTIONEERS (AMERICA) INC.; RB GLOBAL INC.;
RITCHIE BROTHERS, INC.; BRIAN PARKS, Official Capacity; DAVID
RITCHIE, Official Capacity; JIM KESSLER, Official Capacity; EMMA
TUCKLEY, Official Capacity; ANN FANDOOZL, Official Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:24-cv-00278-M-BM)
Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 27, 2026
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Sterling Murdock, III, Appellant Pro Se. Alexandra Harrington Austin,
MAYNARD NEXSEN PC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Murdock Ready Mixed Concrete Company (“Murdock”) appeals the district court’s
order dismissing its pro se complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with a court
order directing it to obtain counsel. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Murdock’s complaint without
prejudice for failure to comply with this order.* See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-
96 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating standard of review and explaining that when a litigant ignores
an express warning that noncompliance with a court order will result in dismissal, the
district court should dismiss the case).
We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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
* To the extent Murdock argues that the district court erred in directing it to obtain
counsel, we conclude that Murdock forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in the
district court, and Murdock does not establish exceptional circumstances warranting our
consideration of this argument for the first time on appeal. See Garey v. James S. Farrin,
P.C., 35 F.4th 917, 928 (4th Cir. 2022).

-- 2 of 2 --