Frederick Pitchford v. Postal Service , 133 F. App'x 360 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-2517
    ___________
    Frederick L. Pitchford,                 *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Postal Service, (U.S.),                 *
    C [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellee.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 31, 2005
    Filed: June 8, 2005
    ___________
    Before SMITH, FAGG, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Frederick L. Pitchford appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure 41(b) dismissal with prejudice of his case. We affirm.
    We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Pitchford
    intentionally disregarded a court order to attend a deposition: he failed to appear at
    two scheduled depositions, and he disobeyed a specific court order to appear at the
    second deposition after being warned--following his failure to appear at the first
    1
    The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Arkansas.
    scheduled deposition--that failure to comply with any court order would result in
    dismissal. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    dismissing the action. See Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 
    203 F.3d 524
    , 527 (8th Cir.
    2000) (clear error standard of review); cf. First Gen. Res. Co. v. Elton Leather Corp.,
    
    958 F.2d 204
    , 206 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (reviewing Rule 41(b) dismissal for
    abuse of discretion, and finding 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). We also find no abuse of
    discretion in the district court’s denial of Pitchford’s postjudgment motions. See
    Middleton v. McDonald, 
    388 F.3d 614
    , 616 (8th Cir. 2004) (Rule 60(b) motions);
    Flannery v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 
    160 F.3d 425
    , 428 (8th Cir. 1998) (Rule 59(e)
    motions).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-2517

Citation Numbers: 133 F. App'x 360

Judges: Smith, Fagg, Magill

Filed Date: 6/8/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024