Henry Okpala v. Computer Sciences Corporation , 585 F. App'x 298 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1627
HENRY UCHE OKPALA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, CSC,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ROBIN SCHERMERHORN, CSC; DAVID H. MARTIN, CSC; WILLIAM
SHOCKRO, CSC; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, CMS,
Third Party,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-03614-JFM)
Submitted: November 24, 2014 Decided: November 26, 2014
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Uche Okpala, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan M. Greene, Samuel
Zurik, III, KULLMAN FIRM, PC, New Orleans, Louisiana; Frank
Daniel Wood, Jr., KULLMAN FIRM, Birmingham, Alabama, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Henry Uche Okpala appeals the district court’s order
dismissing with prejudice his wrongful termination action for
misconduct during discovery. We vacate and remand for further
proceedings.
A district court may dismiss a civil action if a party
fails to comply with a discovery order or attend a properly
noticed deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), (d). Such
dismissals are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Nat’l
Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642
(1976); see Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs.,
Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989) (discussing factors courts
consider before imposing sanctions under Rule 37); see also
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (setting
forth factors courts entertaining dismissal under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b) should consider). We require district courts “to
provide explicit and clear notice when they intend to dismiss
the plaintiff’s action with prejudice” as a sanction for
misconduct. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Goodwin & Boone, 11
F.3d 469, 471-72 (4th Cir. 1993).
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the
district court failed to provide such notice before ordering the
dismissal of Okpala’s suit. Accordingly, we vacate the order of
dismissal and remand for proceedings consistent with this
3
opinion. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4