USCA4 Appeal: 22-6822 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/30/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6822

KENNETH H. NEWKIRK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, Dept. of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

No. 22-7253

KENNETH H. NEWKIRK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, Dept. of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00369-HEH-EWH)

Submitted: January 6, 2023 Decided: January 30, 2023 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6822 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/30/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6822 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/30/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM: In No. 22-6822, Kenneth H. Newkirk appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s prior order. A district court has the authority to dismiss an action for a party’s failure to comply with its orders, and we review a court’s decision to dismiss for failure to comply for an abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 620, 625- (4th Cir. 2019); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). Here, after dismissing one of Newkirk’s prior § 2254 petitions for failure to exhaust his state court remedies, the district court directed Newkirk to include a statement on the front page of any future § 2254 petition stating that he has exhausted his state court remedies. And the court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Newkirk did not comply with the court’s order, and his assertion that he was not required to exhaust his state court remedies before filing his petition is without merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c).

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Newkirk’s § 2254 petition and affirm the district court’s judgment. Newkirk v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:22-cv-00369-HEH-EWH (E.D. Va. June 21, 2022); see Ballard, 882 F.2d at 95-96 (holding that district court did not abuse discretion when it dismissed case for failure to comply with prior order after explicitly warning that dismissal would result from failure to comply).

In No. 22-7253, Newkirk appeals the district court’s order denying his emergency motion for an appeal bond, home confinement, and an injunction. We have reviewed the

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6822 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/30/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Newkirk v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:22-cv-00369-HEH-EWH (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 2022).

For both cases, we deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary, see Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399- (4th Cir. 2015), and deny as moot Newkirk’s motions for bail or release pending appeal and his motion for an emergency hearing. 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