Riggins v. Steel Technologies

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge,

dissenting.

Except for attending a twice-rescheduled deposition after earlier refusals to do so, the plaintiff in this case has failed to comply with every other duty imposed on him by the district court, including the district court’s scheduling order for the case and its order requiring him to pay sanctions for his failures in discovery. He has failed to supply any answers to interrogatories and to file any response to a request for documents. When the defendant filed a motion to compel discovery and a motion for sanctions, the plaintiff failed to attend the hearing. In short, despite the entry of orders and notices necessary for the preparation of this case for trial, the plaintiff has frustrated the district court and defendant at every step.

While I agree that it would have facilitated our review had the district court followed our procedure, set forth in Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Associates, Inc., 872 F.2d 88 (4th Cir.1989), in the particular circumstances of this case, I cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in determining that the plaintiff had forfeited his right to prosecute this case further and, therefore, in dismissing the case. I would, accordingly, affirm.