Case ID: f-appx_216/html/0607-01.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

George POOLE, Appellant, v. Gene STUBBLEFIELD; Richard Dixon, Appellees.
    No. 06-2240.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 6, 2007.
    Filed: Feb. 16, 2007.
    
      George Poole, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
    Patricia Ann Hageman, Thomas J. Goeddel, City Counselor’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellees.
    Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

George Poole appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 37(d), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Upon careful review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s dismissal of Poole’s lawsuit for failure to comply with the court’s order directing him to respond to defendants’ discovery requests, and for his unexplained failure to attend his properly noticed deposition. See Good Stewardship Christian Ctr. v. Empire Bank, 341 F.3d 794, 797 (8th Cir.2003) (standard of review for Rule 41(b) dismissal); Aziz v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir.1994) (standard of review for Rule 37(d) dismissal); Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (lesser sanction of dismissal without prejudice mitigates against finding abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Thomas C. Mummert, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).