Sharp v. Craighead County Sheriff's Department , 22 F. App'x 678 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-2923
    ___________
    Victor J. Sharp,                      *
    *
    Appellant,                *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                              * District Court for the Eastern
    * District of Arkansas
    Craighead County Sheriff’s            *
    Department; Bobby Johnson,            *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    Deputy Sheriff, Craighead County      *
    Sheriff’s Department; Steve Gambill, *
    Deputy Sheriff, Craighead County      *
    Sheriff’s Department; Dale Haas,      *
    former Craighead County Sheriff;      *
    Jack McCann, Craighead County         *
    Sheriff,                              *
    *
    Appellees.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 7, 2001
    Filed: December 5, 2001
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Victor J. Sharp appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure
    to prosecute. For reversal, Sharp argues he did not know of certain procedural rules
    and he was acting pro se. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment
    of the district court.
    We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal. See Sterling v.
    United States, 
    985 F.2d 411
    , 412 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (standard of review).
    Sharp was ordered to respond to defendants’ summary judgment motion, was given
    an extension of time to respond, and was warned that failure to respond could result
    in dismissal. Sharp nevertheless chose not to respond to the summary judgment
    motion even after the extension deadline had passed. See First Gen. Res. Co. v. Elton
    Leather Corp., 
    958 F.2d 204
    , 206 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (dismissal justified
    where district court twice ordered plaintiffs to respond to discovery requests,
    provided them extensions, and expressly warned that failure to respond would result
    in dismissal); see also Brown v. Frey, 
    806 F.2d 801
    , 804 (8th Cir. 1986) (pro se
    litigants must comply with substantive and procedural law).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    1
    The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-2923

Citation Numbers: 22 F. App'x 678

Judges: McMillian, Arnold, Bye

Filed Date: 12/5/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024