* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 22 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BOB J. SETTLE,

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellant,

v. JON BRIM; MICHAEL LAYER; ALAN MILLER; and INFINITY GROUP, INC.,

DefendantsCounterclaimantsAppellees, and JIM VALENTINE and BENJAMIN BEVILLE, Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-2066 (D.C. No. CIV-96-1434-LH)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , EBEL , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.-2-

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 Bob J. Settle is a pro se litigant who su ed his former business partners alleging RICO violations, breach of contra ct, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and interference with business expectancy. After filing his complaint in October 1996, Mr. Settle repeatedly re fused to answer defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production, raisin g numerous objections to all of defendants’ discovery requests. The magistrate jud ge ordered Mr. Settle to comply with defendants’ discovery requests but, bec ause he was proceeding pro se, also ordered simplified interrogatories so thatMr. Settle could respond as simply and conveniently as possible. The magistrat e judge also granted Mr. Settle an extension of time in which to respond to the dis covery requests. Despite these accommodations, Mr. Settle continued to raise numer ous objections to defendants’ discovery requests and to refuse to coo perate in discovery. In September 1997, the magistrate judge entered an ord er giving Mr. Settle still additional time to comply with the discovery reques ts, with an explicit warning that he risked dismissal of his action if he did no t comply. Notwithstanding this-3-

warning, Mr. Settle failed to comply with the Septe mber 1997 discovery order or to cooperate in the discovery process. In January 1998, when Mr. Settle still had not comp lied with the September 1997 discovery order, the magistrate judge recommen ded Mr. Settle’s action be dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b )(2)(C) and 41(b) because of his repeated failure to comply with the Federal Rul es of Civil Procedure and the court orders regarding discovery. The magistrate j udge concluded Mr. Settle had failed to comply with every discovery order of the magistrate judge, that no discovery had been completed in the action more tha n a year after its filing and that defendants had been prejudiced as a result of Mr. Settle’s repeated refusal to cooperate in the discovery process. The magistrate judge noted that Mr. Settle had been warned dismissal was a likely result of co ntinued noncompliance, and concluded that no sanction other than dismissal wou ld be effective. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendationafter reviewing the record de novo, and dismissed Mr. Settle’s complaint with prejudice. Mr. Settle appeals this dismissal, raising the same objections to discovery that he repeatedly made before the magistrate judge . We review the imposition of sanctions for abuse of discretion. See Mobley v. McCormick , 40 F.3d 337, 340 (10th Cir. 1994). Although dismissal is a drastic sanction, our case law makes it clear that a district judge may dismiss an action for discovery violations. See-4-

Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds , 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (authorizing a court to enter an order dismissing the action if a party “fails to obey an order to provid e or permit discovery”). The magistrate judge and the district court considered all of the appropriate factors under Jones v. Thompson , 996 F.2d 261, 264 (10th Cir. 1993) and Ehrenhaus , 965 F.2d at 920-21. The record shows that Mr. Settle a bused the discovery process and flouted several court orders compelling compliance with discovery. We find that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing this action and we affirm the dismissal for substantially the reasons set forth in the thorough report of the magistrate judge dated January 21, 1998, and the district court’s February 11, 1998 order adopting this report. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthw ith.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge