Case Name: Emma W. McDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-11
Citations: 130 F. App'x 685
Docket Number: No. 04-30662
Parties: Emma W. McDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 130
Pages: 685–685

Head Matter:
Emma W. McDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-30662.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided May 11, 2005.
Dianne-Lorraine Hill, Hill Law Office, Monroe, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
S Price Barker, Cook, Yancey, King & Galloway, Shreveport, LA, for DefendantAppellee.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Emma McDonald brought discrimination claims against Appellee Bell-south Telecommunications, Inc. McDonald filed her lawsuit on the last day before the limitations period for her claims expired. McDonald did not have service made on Appellee. Under threat of dismissal for failure to prosecute she ultimately had service made. McDonald did not appear for a noticed deposition. There were no objections filed to the notice. Counsel for Appellee traveled to the out of state deposition only to be subjected to McDonald's failure to appear. McDonald was then ordered to appear for deposition. She did not appear although aware of the order to appear for deposition. McDonald now complains of the dismissal of her claim for failure to comply with the court's orders. We find no merit in her claims that the district court abused its, discretion in dismissing her claims. The record reflects a willful and intentional disregard of required appearances for depositions in McDonald's own lawsuit. No abuse has been shown. We find her argument meritless and her authority inapposite. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.