UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7685
GEORGE W. GANTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ERNEST R. SUTTON; COLBERT L. RESPASS; OFFICER
HERRING, Assistant Unit Manager; MAIL CLERK
HARRIS; MAILROOM OFFICER LIVERMAN;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BARNES; CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER SHARP; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BANKS;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WALKER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:06-ct-03039-D)
Submitted: April 25, 2007 Decided: May 8, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George W. Gantt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George W. Gantt appeals the district court’s order
dismissing with prejudice his amended complaint filed under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for failure to comply with the court’s prior
order directing him to file a complaint setting forth his claims in
a short and plain statement, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a),
and warning him of the consequences of failing to comply. Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in finding that Gantt failed to comply
with Rule 8. See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-69 (D.C. Cir.
2004) (stating standard of review). We find, however, that the
district court’s dismissal of Gantt’s complaint with prejudice was
a harsh remedy. Such dismissals undermine “the sound public policy
of deciding cases on their merits.” Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d
69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978). Thus, we modify the district court’s
dismissal to be without prejudice to Gantt’s right to refile a
complaint that satisfies Rule 8 and affirm the district court’s
order as modified. Gantt v. Sutton, No. 5:06-ct-03039-D (E.D.N.C.
Oct. 2, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
- 2 -