Case ID: f-appx_551/html/0361-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William T. WEBSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-16088.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 2, 2014.
    William T. Webster, Red Bank, NJ, pro se.
    William H. Pruitt, Esquire, David Barron, Esquire, Charlene M. Gillespie, Esquire, Barron & Pruitt, LLP, North Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William T. Webster appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his removal from transitional housing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the imposition of discovery sanctions. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing terminating sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) on the basis of Webster’s willful violations of the court’s discovery orders that prevented defendants from conducting meaningful discovery. See Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 482 F.3d at 1096-97 (discussing factors for evaluating terminating sanctions, and noting that terminating sanctions may be appropriate “[wjhere a party so damages the integrity of the discovery process that there can never be assurance of proceeding on the true facts” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Webster’s contentions concerning the denial of his motion for partial summary judgment are unsupported by the record. See Balvage v. Ryderwood Improvement & Serv. Ass’n, Inc., 642 F.3d 765, 775 (9th Cir.2011) (setting forth standard of review).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.