UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 7/3/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

VINCENT A. APODACA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JUDY UPHOFF, individually and in her official capacity as Director, Wyoming Department of Corrections; ROBERT E. ORTEGA, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Director, Wyoming Department of Corrections; DUANE SHILLINGER, individually and in his official capacity as Warden, State Penitentiary Wyoming Department of Corrections; BILL HETTGAR, individually and in his official capacity State Penitentiary Medical Administrator, Wyoming Department of Corrections; JAMES FERGUSON, individually and in his official capacity as State Penitentiary Deputy Warden, Wyoming Department of Corrections; ARCHIE KIRSCH, individually and in his official capacity as State Penitentiary Medical Doctor, Wyoming Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-8070 (D.C. No. 95-CV-10) (D. Wyo.)* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior Circuit Judge, Un ited States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designat ion. -2- ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, BRIGHT, ** and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Vincent A. Apodaca appeals from an order of the district court dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C . § 1983 for failure to prosecute. We affirm. The district court may dismiss an action for lack o f prosecution if, after consideration of all the relevant factors, it concl udes dismissal is the most appropriate sanction to satisfy the interests of ju stice. See, e.g. , Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds , 965 F.2d 916, 920-21 (10th Cir. 1992). “Determin ation of the correct sanction . . . is a fact-specific inquiry that the district court is best qualified to-3-

make.” Id. at 920. Therefore, we review the district court’s sanction of dismissal in this case for abuse of discretion. Mobley v. Mc Cormick , 40 F.3d 337, 340 (10th Cir. 1994). The district court reviewed both the magistrate jud ge’s recommendation and the record and concluded that the history of th e suit “clearly demonstrates plaintiff’s continuing obstreperous lack of cooperation in the discovery process and a cavalier disregard for the rules of this Court governing discovery.” R. Vol. II, tab 55 at 4. The court also noted that plainti ff had made no attempt to justify his actions as requested in the magistrate judge’s show cause order. We have reviewed the record. While plaintiff offer s reasons for his actions, these reasons are specious. Plaintiff has presented no valid reasons either before the district court or before this court why the sanction of dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute was an abuse of dis cretion. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the court Per curiam