Case ID: f-appx_67/html/0227-01.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

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathaniel F. DOWNING, Claimant-Appellant, and $1,810.00 U.S. Currency, Defendant.
    No. 03-6259.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2003.
    Decided June 23, 2003.
    Nathaniel F. Downing, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Andrew George Warrens Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel F. Downing appeals from the district court’s order entering a default judgment against him in this civil forfeiture proceeding. Athough given several opportunities to respond to the government’s requests for discovery, Downing failed to comply. The district court may dismiss an action if a party fails to timely answer or object to discovery requests. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d). The dismissal of an action as a sanction for discovery violations is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639, 642, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976). Applying the four-part test provided in Mutual Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assoc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir.1989), we find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny Downing’s motion for judgment and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Downing, No. CA-01-1901-AMD (D.Md. Nov. 20, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.