Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02221/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02221-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., late a United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2221

___________

Phyllis D. Racy, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Arkansas Child Support Enforcement *

Unit, Revenue Division, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 12, 2007

 Filed: October 22, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Phyllis Racy appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal without prejudice of her Title

VII action for failure to comply with a discovery order, and argues that counsel should

have been appointed for her. We affirm.

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

action, given that Racy ignored defendant’s repeated discovery requests for over a

Appellate Case: 06-2221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2007 Entry ID: 3364230
-2-

year, ignored the district court’s order compelling her to respond to such requests, and

never provided any justification for her failure to respond. See Doe v. Cassel, 403

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

dismissal); Hairston v. Alert Safety Light Prods., Inc., 307 F.3d 717, 718-19 (8th Cir.

2002) (standard of review of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) dismissal); Hutchins v. A.G.

Edwards & Sons, Inc., 116 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (8th Cir. 1997) (noncompliance

underlying Rule 41(b) dismissal must be deliberate).

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to

appoint counsel for Racy, who appeared capable of presenting her case and gave no

indication--below or on appeal--that she could not, without counsel, respond properly

to defendant’s discovery requests. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791,

794 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review; relevant factors include ability of indigent

person to investigate facts and present claims). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2221 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2007 Entry ID: 3364230