Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02733/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02733-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Captain Melvin Steed
Appellee
Damond Thompson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

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

for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District

of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2733

___________

Damond Thompson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Captain Melvin Steed, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 24, 2010

Filed: March 29, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Damond Thompson appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute. The dismissal occurred after Thompson failed to

comply with an April 6 order directing him to submit a witness and exhibit list for his

scheduled evidentiary hearing. Thompson argues on appeal that dismissal was

erroneous because he did not receive the April 6 order, he had given written notice to

Appellate Case: 09-2733 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2010 Entry ID: 3649108
-2-

the court that he was having trouble sending and receiving mail at his new address,

and he had not previously failed to respond to any court orders.

We hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding that it was unlikely

that Thompson did not receive the order, see Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470

U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (clear-error standard), and thus the court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b). See Smith v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402, 404-05 (8th Cir.

2008) (standard of review for dismissal for failure to prosecute). The order warned

Thompson that his action could be dismissed if he did not file his witness and exhibit

list by a certain date and that no further continuances of the evidentiary hearing would

be granted absent an extraordinary showing of good cause. See First Gen. Res. Co.

v. Elton Leather Corp., 958 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (upholding

dismissal under Rule 41(b) in part because district court “expressly warned”

appellants that case could be dismissed); 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).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2733 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2010 Entry ID: 3649108