Case ID: f-appx_241/html/0351-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymond SETZKE, Appellant, v. Steve WHITMILL, Sheriff, Washington County, Arkansas; Vernon Sizemore; Deputy Coker, Washington County K9 Unit; Officer Billy Dunn, Johnson Police Department; Unknown Officers of the Washington County Sheriff's Department and Johnson Police Department; Ray Reynolds, Judge, City of Johnson; Jim Boyd, Judge, City of Johnson; Daniel Wright, Prosecutor, City of Johnson; Officer of the Fayetteville Police Department; Officer Billy Dunn; Deputy Scott Young, Washington County Deputy; Deputy Skelton, Washington County Deputy; Frank Johnson, Police Chief of Fayetteville Police Department; Vernon Sizemore, Chief of Police, City of Johnson, Arkansas; Grammer, Officer at Fayetteville Police Dept. K-9 Unit, Appellees.
    No. 06-1812.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 20, 2007.
    Filed: July 20, 2007.
    Raymond Setzke, Warrenville, IL, pro se.
    Michael R. Rainwater, Jason E. Owens, Rainwater & Holt, Danny Franklin Bufford, Laser & Wilson, Little Rock, AR, Robert L. Beard, David C. Sward, Arkansas Municipal League, North Little Rock, AR, for Appellees.
    Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Raymond Setzke appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after he failed to appear for two scheduled depositions. We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of the action. See Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 990 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) dismissal); Boogaerts v. Bank of Bradley, 961 F.2d 765, 768 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 dismissal). Setzke admitted to defense counsel by telephone that he received notice of the first deposition, the court warned him that failure to attend the second deposition could result in dismissal, and defendants produced unrebutted proof that they properly noticed the second deposition. See Aziz v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 588-89 (8th Cir.1994) (affirming dismissal under Rule 41(b) for plaintiffs failure to comply with court order allowing deposition). We also see no abuse of discretion in the award of reasonable costs to defendants. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d) (court shall require party failing to attend own deposition to pay “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure”); Ranger Transp., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 903 F.2d 1185, 1188 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.