Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03607/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03607-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3607

___________

Valerie Townes, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

The May Department Stores, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 26, 2004

Filed: April 29, 2004 

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Valerie Townes appeals from the district court’s order1

 dismissing without

prejudice her race-based discrimination action against May Department Stores (May)

for her failure to comply with discovery orders. We affirm.

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

Townes’s complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (if party fails to obey order

Appellate Case: 03-3607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2004 Entry ID: 1761883 
-2-

entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), court may make such order in regard to such

failure as is just, including dismissal of action); Farnsworth v. City of Kansas City,

Mo., 863 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (standard of review), cert. denied,

493 U.S. 820 (1989). The court ordered Townes to respond to May’s written

discovery requests and to appear for deposition, but Townes did neither; she thus

effectively prevented May from developing its case--or even learning more about

Townes’s claims beyond the facts stated in her complaint. See Keefer v. Provident

Life & Accident Ins. Co., 238 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2001); Lorin Corp. v. Goto &

Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1208 (8th Cir. 1983). Although Townes complains that legal

papers were mailed to appointed counsel rather than to her directly, she does not

assert that she was unaware of either court-imposed deadlines or the date of her

deposition; furthermore, Townes was specifically warned that failure to comply with

the court’s discovery order could result in dismissal of her action, cf. Aziz v. Wright,

34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding willful violation of discovery-related court

order where plaintiff was warned dismissal would be consequence of continued

noncompliance), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1090 (1995), and her action was dismissed

without prejudice, cf. Edgington v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir.

1995) (fact that dismissal of pro se complaint for noncompliance with pretrial orders

was without prejudice mitigates against finding that court abused its discretion). 

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by appointing

counsel solely for discovery. See id. (standard of review); Wiggins v. Sargent, 753

F.2d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 1985) (indigent litigant enjoys neither statutory nor

constitutional right to have counsel appointed in civil case).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2004 Entry ID: 1761883