Castillo v. Alstom Power, Inc. , 85 F. App'x 985 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                             United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                   January 22, 2004
    FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-30631
    Summary Calendar
    ABELARDO A. CASTILLO,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    ALSTOM POWER, INC.,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Louisiana
    (02-CV-227-A-M1)
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Abelardo Castillo filed the instant action under the Americans
    with Disabilities Act and state law against his former employer,
    Alstom Power, Inc. (Alstom), claiming Alstom improperly refused to
    rehire   him   after   he    recovered     from   work-related     injuries.
    Thereafter, Castillo failed both to conduct discovery in accordance
    with the scheduling order and to communicate with opposing counsel
    or the court.    As a result, Alstom filed an unopposed motion to
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    strike.    The district court granted Alstom’s motion and dismissed
    this action with prejudice.
    Castillo can not receive relief from that judgment unless he
    shows that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing
    his action.      E.g., SEC v. First Houston Capital Resources Fund,
    Inc., 
    979 F.2d 380
    , 381-82 (5th Cir. 1992).           Castillo has not done
    so.
    A review of the record reflects that he engaged in “delay or
    contumacious conduct” and that the district court determined that
    lesser sanctions were inappropriate.             See McNeal v. Papasan, 
    842 F.2d 787
    , 790 (5th Cir. 1988). Moreover, the breadth of Castillo’s
    failures to comply with the discovery order and to communicate with
    either opposing counsel or the district court supports that court’s
    determination that these failures were intentional and not the
    result    of   mere   inadvertence.       Such    intentional   delay   is   an
    aggravating factor supporting a decision to dismiss an action. See
    
    id. AFFIRMED 2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-30631

Citation Numbers: 85 F. App'x 985

Judges: Barksdale, Garza, Dennis

Filed Date: 1/22/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024