Case ID: f-appx_112/html/0994-01.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

DIRECTV, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlton PEPPERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-10272.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 19, 2004.
    Andrew Jan Mytelka, Steven Carl Windsor, Lonzie C. Helms, Greer, Herz & Adams, Galveston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joe A C Fulcher, Greer, Herz & Adams, League City, TX, Daniel Matthew Burns, Law Offices of Daniel M. Burns, Buda, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Charlton Peppers appeals following the entry of a default judgment against him. The district court struck Peppers’s four attempts to file an answer to the complaint for failure to comply with the local rules of civil procedure. Peppers argues that the district court did not consider lesser sanctions before striking his pleadings.

“Entry of a default judgment is an appropriate sanction when the disobedient party has failed to comply with a court order because of willfulness, bad faith, or other fault on its part, as opposed to its inability to comply with the court’s order.” Technical Chem. Co. v. IG-LO Prod. Corp., 812 F.2d 222, 224 (5th Cir.1987). The district court warned Peppers that the local rules would be strictly enforced and repeatedly gave him opportunities to correct the various deficiencies before striking the pleadings and entering a default judgment. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1486 (5th Cir.1990).

The appellee’s motion for sanctions against Peppers pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1912 and 1927 is DENIED.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.