Case Name: Dr. Genick BAR-MEIR, Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN DIE CASTING ASSOCIATION; Edmund A. Herman; Andrew Behler; William Walkington; John Wronowicz; Daniel Twarog; Steven Udvardy, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-15
Citations: 30 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 01-3445
Parties: Dr. Genick BAR-MEIR, Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN DIE CASTING ASSOCIATION; Edmund A. Herman; Andrew Behler; William Walkington; John Wronowicz; Daniel Twarog; Steven Udvardy, Appellees.
Judges: Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 674–675

Head Matter:
Dr. Genick BAR-MEIR, Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN DIE CASTING ASSOCIATION; Edmund A. Herman; Andrew Behler; William Walkington; John Wronowicz; Daniel Twarog; Steven Udvardy, Appellees.
No. 01-3445.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 28, 2002.
Decided March 15, 2002.
Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Genick Bar-Meir filed this action against the North American Die Casting Association (NADCA) and six individuals, claiming they infringed his copyrights of a book and an article. The district court dismissed the action for Bar-Meir's persistent failure to comply with orders to provide proper discovery. Bar-Mem appeals the dismissal and several other pretrial rulings.
We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action after finding that Bar-Meir had intentionally refused to provide discovery central to his claims and NADCA's defense, and that a lesser sanction would not adequately protect NADCA. See Martin v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 694-95 (8th Cir.2001)(standard of review). We also hold the court did not abuse its discretion in any of its discovery rulings. See SDI Operating P'ship v. Neuwirth, 973 F.2d 652, 655 (8th Cir.1992)(standard of review).
We further hold the district court did not err in dismissing the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, see Wessels, Arnold & Henderson v. Nat'l Med. Waste, Inc., 65 F.3d 1427, 1432 (8th Cir.1995)(factors for determining personal jurisdiction), or in denying Bar-Meir leave to file his first proposed amended complaint, as the proposed amendment would have been futile, see Wald v. Southwestern Bell Corp. Customcare Med. Plan, 83 F.3d 1002, 1006 (8th Cir.1996).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
. The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.