Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01812/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01812-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1812

___________

Raymond Setzke, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Steve Whitmill, Sheriff, *

Washington County, Arkansas; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Vernon Sizemore; Deputy Coker, *

Washington County K-9 Unit; *

Officer Billy Dunn, Johnson Police *

Department; Unknown Officers of *

the Washington County Sheriff’s *

Department and Johnson Police *

Department; Ray Reynolds, Judge, *

City of Johnson; Jim Boyd, Judge, *

City of Johnson; Daniel Wright, *

Prosecutor, City of Johnson; Officer *

of the Fayetteville Police Department; *

Officer Billy Dunn; Deputy Scott *

Young, Washington County Deputy; *

Deputy Skelton, Washington County *

Deputy; Frank Johnson, Police Chief *

of Fayetteville Police Department; *

Vernon Sizemore, Chief of Police, *

City of Johnson, Arkansas; Grammer, *

Officer at Fayetteville Police Dept. *

K-9 Unit, *

*

Appellees. *

Appellate Case: 06-1812 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2007 Entry ID: 3331851
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas. 

-2-

 ___________

Submitted: July 20, 2007

Filed: July 20, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Setzke appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal without prejudice of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after he failed to appear for two scheduled depositions. We

see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of the action. See Doe v.

Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 990 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

dismissal); Boogaerts v. Bank of Bradley, 961 F.2d 765, 768 (8th Cir. 1992) (per

curiam) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 dismissal). Setzke admitted to defense counsel by

telephone that he received notice of the first deposition, the court warned him that

failure to attend the second deposition could result in dismissal, and defendants

produced unrebutted proof that they properly noticed the second deposition. See Aziz

v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 588-89 (8th Cir. 1994) (affirming dismissal under Rule 41(b)

for plaintiff’s failure to comply with court order allowing deposition). We also see

no abuse of discretion in the award of reasonable costs to defendants. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(d) (court shall require party failing to attend own deposition to pay “reasonable

expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure”); Ranger Transp., Inc. v.

Wal-Mart Stores, 903 F.2d 1185, 1188 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (standard of

review).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

_________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1812 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/20/2007 Entry ID: 3331851