CURIAM. Daniel L. Staley appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Having reviewed the record and Staley’s informal brief on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without prejudice, after Staley had been warned of the consequences of failing to timely comply with an order of the magistrate judge. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s
holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that where party had reasonable grounds to believe conduct was in compliance with the district courts order imposition of sanctions was not warranted and constituted an abuse of discretion recognizing that a district courts dismissal of an independent action under rule 60b is reviewed for abuse of discretion recognizing that propriety of dismissal without warning for failure to prosecute although abuse of discretion and grounds for appeal was not basis for overturning denial of motion under rule 60b to set aside dismissal holding district courts dismissal following explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion