Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01426/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01426-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leslie Denise Henderson
Appellant
Renaissance Grand Hotel
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1426

___________

Leslie Denise Henderson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Renaissance Grand Hotel, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2008

Filed: February 29, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leslie Henderson appeals the district court’s1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b) dismissal without prejudice of her Title VII action for failure to prosecute. For

reversal, Henderson argues (1) that the district court abused its discretion in

dismissing her case because her claim is now time-barred, making the dismissal an

unduly harsh sanction; and (2) that the court relied on a clearly erroneous finding that

she had failed to respond to appellee’s motion to dismiss. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 07-1426 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/29/2008 Entry ID: 3407980
-2-

A district court has discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for a

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

or any court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This court reviews such a dismissal for

an abuse of discretion, considering the egregiousness of the plaintiff’s conduct and its

adverse impact upon the defendant and the district court; this court reviews the

underlying factual findings, including the determination of delay and willful disregard

of a court order, for clear error. See Rodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 135 F.3d

1216, 1218-19 (8th Cir. 1998).

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly

err in finding that Henderson failed to prosecute her case and failed to comply with

court orders. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)

(finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence in the record to

support it, “the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been committed”). Accordingly, we find that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in dismissing this action. See Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 988-90

(8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (dismissal for undue delay and failure to comply with

court orders was not abuse of discretion where, inter alia, petitioner repeatedly failed

to meet court’s discovery schedule); Farnsworth v. Kansas City, Mo., 863 F.2d 33, 34

(8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (pro se litigants are not excused from complying with

court orders); cf. Brooks v. Special Sch. Dist., 129 F.3d 121 (8th Cir. 1997) (per

curiam) (unpublished table decision) (affirming dismissal without prejudice for failure

to pay filing fee despite plaintiff’s assertion that dismissal was in effect with prejudice

because refiling is now time-barred; district court has power to control its docket and

may dismiss action under Rule 41(b) as long as dismissal is not abuse of discretion).

Last, while the court clearly erred in stating that Henderson did not respond to

the motion to dismiss, this error was harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61 (any error that

does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded). The court’s dismissal was

based not on that incorrect statement, but on Henderson’s failures to move her case

Appellate Case: 07-1426 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/29/2008 Entry ID: 3407980
-3-

forward, to comply with court orders in a timely manner, and to communicate with

Renaissance. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1426 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/29/2008 Entry ID: 3407980