Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-03364/USCOURTS-ca10-09-03364-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alorica, Inc.
Appellee
Princess J. Anthony
Appellant

Document Text:

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the *

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 28, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PRINCESS J. ANTHONY,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-3364

v. D. Kansas

ALORICA, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee .

(D.C. Nos. 2:08-CV-02437-CM-KGS

 and 2:08-CV-02438-JAR-KGS)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff and appellant, Princess Anthony, a black female, filed two

underlying Title VII lawsuits after defendant and appellee Alorica, Inc.

terminated her employment. The two cases were consolidated. Following

Appellate Case: 09-3364 Document: 01018431132 Date Filed: 05/28/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

repeated attempts to complete discovery, Alorica filed a motion to dismiss the

cases. The magistrate judge to whom the matter was referred recommended that

the motion to dismiss be granted as a sanction against Ms. Anthony. The

magistrate judge described Ms. Anthony’s repeated failure to respond to court

orders and directives, as well as her failure to respond to disclosure requirements,

even after she was given extra time to do so.

Subsequently, on December 4, 2009, the district court adopted the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full, and dismissed the

consolidated actions. This appeal followed. Except for a brief period of time,

Ms. Anthony has proceeded pro se.

We have carefully read the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,

the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation, and numerous

other orders entered throughout the case, as well as the complete record. We can

add nothing to the analysis contained therein. While we are sympathetic to

Ms. Anthony’s plight, with a seriously ill child, and the problems she purports to

have with the United States mail service, neither those situations nor her pro se

status excuse her from complying with the most basic and fundamental procedural

rules of our courts. 

Appellate Case: 09-3364 Document: 01018431132 Date Filed: 05/28/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the dismissal of the consolidated Title VII

actions, for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s order dated

December 4, 2009. Any other pending motions are DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-3364 Document: 01018431132 Date Filed: 05/28/2010 Page: 3