Opinion
22-7063
10-02-2023
CHRISTOPHER J. ESTES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
Christopher J. Estes, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 28, 2023
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)
Christopher J. Estes, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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