UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6075
MARCUS D. THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
L. ROSS, RN; E. JOHNSON, RN; D. SPIERS, DON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00989-TSE-TRJ)
Submitted: May 20, 2014 Decided: June 6, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Marcus D. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus D. Thomas appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with its prior order. We
review the district court’s order for abuse of discretion. See
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). “A
district court abuses its discretion when it . . . relies on
erroneous factual or legal premises.” United States v.
Thompson-Riviere, 561 F.3d 345, 348 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The district court dismissed Thomas’ complaint because
it found that Thomas “ha[d] not filed a signed consent order,
amended complaint, or completed exhaustion affidavit.” On
appeal, Thomas claims that he has “done everything [he] was
asked to do by the court.” We agree. Upon reviewing the
record, we have determined that the consent order, amended
complaint, and completed exhaustion affidavit were submitted to
the court along with Thomas’ motion “for the allowance of
testimony.” We thus conclude that the district court relied on
an erroneous factual premise in dismissing the complaint.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for
further proceedings.
Thomas also appeals the district court’s orders
directing him to file additional documents and denying his
2
motion for appointment of counsel. Finding no reversible error,
we affirm those orders. * Thomas v. Ross, No. 1:13-cv-00989-TSE-
TRJ (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 20, 2013 & entered Sept. 23, 2013;
filed Oct. 9, 2013 & entered Oct. 10, 2013).
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 IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
*
In so doing, we express no opinion on whether appointment
of counsel may be appropriate later in the proceedings.
3