Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02517/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02517-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2517

___________

Frederick L. Pitchford, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Postal Service, (U.S.), *

C [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 31, 2005

Filed: June 8, 2005

___________

Before SMITH, FAGG, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Frederick L. Pitchford appeals the district court’s1

 Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b) dismissal with prejudice of his case. We affirm.

We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Pitchford

intentionally disregarded a court order to attend a deposition: he failed to appear at

two scheduled depositions, and he disobeyed a specific court order to appear at the

second deposition after being warned--following his failure to appear at the first

Appellate Case: 04-2517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Entry ID: 1912862
-2-

scheduled deposition--that failure to comply with any court order would result in

dismissal. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing the action. See Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 203 F.3d 524, 527 (8th Cir.

2000) (clear error standard of review); cf. First Gen. Res. Co. v. Elton Leather Corp.,

958 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (reviewing Rule 41(b) dismissal for

abuse of discretion, and finding dismissal justified where district court twice ordered

plaintiffs to respond to discovery requests, provided them extensions, and expressly

warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal). We also find no abuse of

discretion in the district court’s denial of Pitchford’s postjudgment motions. See

Middleton v. McDonald, 388 F.3d 614, 616 (8th Cir. 2004) (Rule 60(b) motions);

Flannery v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 425, 428 (8th Cir. 1998) (Rule 59(e)

motions). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2517 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Entry ID: 1912862