*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the

record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 19, 2006*

Decided June 20, 2006

Before

Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 05-4125

JOHN DAGGETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RICHARD WOLLANGK, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin

No. 05-C-0084

William C. Griesbach,

Judge.

O R D E R 

John Daggett sued officers of the Oshkosh Police Department under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 for using excessive force in subduing him with a Taser stun gun. He

alleged various injuries and sought $2.5 billion in damages. The district court

dismissed Daggett’s case with prejudice for failing to follow its discovery orders. 

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 05-4125 Page 2

An officer was dispatched to Daggett’s house after a neighbor reported an

incident between the two. The officer believed that Daggett was sitting near a large

knife and asked him to move away from it. The parties dispute what happened

next but the defendants concede that Daggett was stunned at least twice with the

Taser and then taken to a hospital. Daggett alleged that he was beaten, kicked,

shot, stunned at least twenty times, and taken to, though not treated at, the

hospital. 

The discovery problems began when the officers requested that Daggett

authorize the release of his medical records and—because they believed he put his

medical condition in issue—submit to a medical examination. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

35(a). Daggett refused. The court told him at a scheduling conference that he had

to sign the authorization form and submit to an examination or his case would be

dismissed. Still, Daggett refused. The officers then moved to compel Daggett to

sign the authorization form and undergo an examination, though they did not

specify a physician or time or place for the examination. 

The court ordered Daggett to sign the authorization form and to cooperate

with the defendants in arranging a medical examination. In the order the court

warned him again that failure to comply would result in dismissal. What Daggett

eventually submitted were reports from doctors he purportedly saw in Germany,

though all but one of those reports are in German and not translated. He also

signed the bottom of the authorization form but did not initial or mark certain

provisions that would have established his consent to the release of the information. 

Fed up, the defendants moved for dismissal based on Daggett’s failure to comply

with the court’s orders, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and submitted his deposition in

support of the motion. In that deposition Daggett asserted that he would not

complete the authorization form or submit to an independent medical examination. 

In fact, he barely participated in the deposition at all, giving evasive and nonresponsive answers to questions. The court granted the motion and dismissed the

case under Rule 41(b). 

Daggett’s brief on appeal is much like his filings in the district court: 

rambling, inconsistent, and incoherent. As best we can tell, his only argument

challenging the court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b) is that he complied with the

court’s order. He says that he signed the medical authorization form and

underwent a medical examination in Germany, so the court abused its discretion in

dismissing his case. 

Abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review, Williams v. Chi. Bd. of

Educ., 155 F.3d 853, 857 (7th Cir. 1998), though we find none here. Dismissals

under Rule 41(b) are justified by contumacious conduct, Maynard v. Nygren, 332

F.3d 462, 467 (7th Cir. 2003), and here Daggett flouted the court’s order by refusing
No. 05-4125 Page 3

to complete the authorization form or undergo a medical examination. Though he

baldly claims that he complied with the order, he points to nothing in the record to

show that he completed the authorization form; to the contrary, his deposition

testimony reflects that he had no intention of doing so. 

Nor has he shown that he complied with the court’s order regarding a

medical examination. He maintains that the reports from his German doctors show

that he did undergo an appropriate medical exam. Only one of those reports has

been translated from German, see Tippecanoe Beverages, Inc. v. S.A. El Aguila

Brewing Co., 833 F.2d 633, 636 (7th Cir. 1987) (remarking that untranslated

document “might just as well have been written in Egyptian hieroglyphics and

placed in evidence in a trial completed before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone”),

and the report that is translated is unsigned and looks suspiciously like documents

Daggett himself created. But even if we could understand the reports and believed

them to be authentic, they do not show that Daggett complied with the court’s

order. What the court ordered was for him to cooperate in arranging an appropriate

examination with the defendants. Flying to Germany for a medical exam because

he prefers German doctors, if that is indeed what he did, was not arranged in

cooperation with the defendants. 

The dismissal is AFFIRMED.