Case Name: Chandrashekhar B. THANEDAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIME WARNER COMMUNICATIONS OF HOUSTON, LLP, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-10
Citations: 227 F. App'x 385
Docket Number: No. 06-20220
Parties: Chandrashekhar B. THANEDAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIME WARNER COMMUNICATIONS OF HOUSTON, LLP, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 385–386

Head Matter:
Chandrashekhar B. THANEDAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIME WARNER COMMUNICATIONS OF HOUSTON, LLP, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-20220.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 10, 2007.
Jon Daniel Brooks, Brooks LLP, Corpus Christi, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
R. Michael Moore, Law Office of R. Michael Moore, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Chandrashekhar B. Thanedar appeals the dismissal with prejudice of this action brought against Time Warner Communications of Houston, LLP, and seventeen other corporate entities, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Having considered the briefs and pertinent parts of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering dismissal in response to Thanedar's failure to comply with discovery orders, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d), and failure to prosecute his lawsuit. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). In light of Thanedar's serially contumacious conduct, we likewise find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Appellant's motions for continuance. Finally, Thanedar's due-process claim that Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), entitled him to a predismissal hearing is frivolous. Mathews requires the articulation of due process standards; a federal court's procedures, specified in the Federal Rules, are clearly ascertainable. When, as here, a party is shown to have been "deliberately proceed ing in a dilatory fashion," a district court may dismiss a case "without affording notice of its intention to do so or providing an adversary hearing before acting." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1390, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Price v. McGlathery, 792 F.2d 472, 475-76 (5th Cir.1986).
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.