William Caradine/Assabur, II v. John Doe , 419 F. App'x 703 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-1688
    ___________
    William F. Caradine/Assabur, II,        *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the Eastern
    * District of Arkansas.
    John Doe, Manager, Sonic                *
    Drive-In, Inc.,                         * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 23, 2011
    Filed: June 29, 2011
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Arkansas inmate William F. Caradine/Assabur, II (Caradine) appeals from the
    district court’s1 dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.
    Caradine has also filed in this court various motions requesting, among other things,
    additional relief and disclosure of his medical records. Upon careful review, we
    conclude that the district court’s dismissal without prejudice was not an abuse of
    1
    The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    discretion. See Nw. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Ill. Nat’l Bank, 
    354 F.3d 721
    , 725 (8th
    Cir. 2003) (district court’s application of its local rules reviewed for abuse of
    discretion); Settlemire v. Watson, 
    877 F.2d 13
    , 14 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam)
    (affirming dismissal of pro se complaint where plaintiff failed to comply with court
    order to amend complaint within thirty days, and district court dismissed complaint
    without prejudice under local rule allowing dismissal where litigant fails to respond
    to communication of court within thirty days); cf. Boyle v. Am. Auto Serv., Inc., 
    571 F.3d 734
    , 741-42 (8th Cir. 2009) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) dismissal for failure to
    prosecute reviewed for abuse of discretion).
    Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. In addition, all of
    Caradine’s pending motions are denied as moot.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1688

Citation Numbers: 419 F. App'x 703

Judges: Benton, Gruender, Melloy, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 6/29/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023