Case ID: f-appx_447/html/0637-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John H. SLEDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MARSHALL COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-60194
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 1, 2011.
    John H. Sledge, Holly Springs, MS, pro se.
    Justin Strauss Cluck, Esq., Smith Wha-ley, P.L.L.C., Holly Springs, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Sledge filed a complaint against the Marshall County Sheriffs Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendant discriminated against him because of his race when it ignored his corn-plaints regarding trespassers and unlawful hunting on his property. The defendant filed a motion to compel Sledge to respond to discovery and appear for his deposition. The magistrate judge granted the motion, and warned Sledge that his complaint could be dismissed if he continued to refuse to participate in discovery.

Despite that warning, Sledge continued to refuse to appear for his deposition or to respond to the defendant’s interrogatories. The magistrate judge concluded that Sledge’s refusal to cooperate in discovery, his lack of response to the defendant, and his failure to abide by the court’s rules, orders, and procedures established a clear record of willful non-compliance and failure to prosecute his case. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Sledge’s complaint.

Sledge filed two motions for reconsideration and a motion for relief from judgment. In its order denying those motions, the district court stated that, after nearly a year of attempting to encourage Sledge to participate in discovery, it had dismissed the complaint because of Sledge’s blatant disregard for the court’s orders and bold refusal to cooperate with discovery. The district court observed that Sledge’s arguments were illogical and could not be reconciled with one another.

Sledge’s pro se brief on appeal is largely incomprehensible, and fails to establish any basis for reversal. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Sledge’s complaint for noncompliance with court orders regarding discovery. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.