Derick Wewerka v. Don Roper , 431 F. App'x 517 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-1211
    ___________
    Derick Wewerka,                        *
    *
    Appellant,                *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the Eastern
    * District of Missouri.
    Don Roper, Superintendent;             *
    Unknown Huffman; Unknown West;         * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Martin; CO Clubbs; PCC Delasmit,       *
    *
    Appellees,                *
    *
    Carl Taylor; Willie Williams,          *
    *
    Defendants,               *
    *
    Linda Roberts; Sandra Beedle,          *
    Nurse; Dale Persch; Carl L. Omer,      *
    Asst. Warden; Malloy, Mrs.,            *
    *
    Appellees.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: September 28, 2011
    Filed: October 3, 2011
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Inmate Derick Wewerka appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action, without prejudice. The court dismissed the complaint under
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute, based on Wewerka’s
    failure to obey a court order requiring him to pay an initial partial filing fee; or
    alternatively under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for failure to exhaust his administrative
    remedies. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not
    abuse its discretion based on Wewerka’s failure to pay the initial partial filing fee as
    ordered: he failed to do so for over seven months; he never notified the court of any
    reason for his noncompliance; and on appeal he does not address the issue. See Smith
    v. Gold Dust Casino, 
    526 F.3d 402
    , 404-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review);
    Cosby v. Meadors, 
    351 F.3d 1324
    , 1327 (10th Cir. 2003) (if inmate has means to pay
    partial filing fee and fails to do so, district court may dismiss action under Rule 41(b)
    for noncompliance with court order); Schooley v. Kennedy, 
    712 F.2d 372
    , 374 (8th
    Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (Rule 41(b) dismissal without prejudice militates against
    finding abuse of discretion). Thus, this court does not need to discuss the
    administrative-exhaustion issue.
    This court affirms.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1211

Citation Numbers: 431 F. App'x 517

Judges: Murphy, Arnold, Benton

Filed Date: 10/3/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024