Court Opinion

ID: 999787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:30:50.324092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:45.101093
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GLEN MARCUS FALLIN,
Appellant,

and

ROBERT DICARLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                               No. 97-2425
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND, a
municipal corporation; WESLEY P.
MARTIN, individually and in his
official capacity as an employee of
the Department of Recreation and
Parks of Baltimore County,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge.
(CA-95-556-MJG)

Submitted: August 17, 1999

Decided: September 23, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Glen M. Fallin, Severna Park, Maryland, for Appellants. Virginia W.
Barnhart, County Attorney, Gregory E. Gaskins, Assistant County
Attorney, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert DiCarlo appeals the order of the district court declining to
give effect to his notices of voluntary dismissal. DiCarlo also appeals
the court's dismissal of his complaint with prejudice on the basis of
his failure to comply with court orders. DiCarlo's counsel, Glen Fal-
lin, appeals the district court's order awarding sanctions against him
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (1994). We have reviewed the briefs
and the record and have found no error. Accordingly, we affirm.

Fallin asserts that the district court abused its discretion in award-
ing sanctions based on his vexatious and duplicative filings. We dis-
agree. As the district court noted, Fallin's actions were admittedly
taken in an effort to frustrate the jurisdiction of the federal courts after
having been previously sanctioned for similar conduct. Accordingly,
the district court did not err in deciding that Fallin was acting in bad
faith. See Brubaker v. City of Richmond, 943 F.2d 1363, 1382 n.25
(4th Cir. 1991).

We also find no error in the district court's determination that
DiCarlo's notices of voluntary dismissal were invalid. A plaintiff may
move for voluntary dismissal only if the defendant has not yet filed
an answer or a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(i). Unlike the cases DiCarlo relies on in his brief, in this mat-
ter the defendants had filed a motion for dismissal or summary judg-

                     2
ment prior to Fallin's notice. Accordingly, DiCarlo's right of
voluntary dismissal had been extinguished.

Finally, the district court did not err in dismissing DiCarlo's com-
plaint. The court warned DiCarlo no less than three times that he must
obtain substitute counsel following Fallin's removal from the district
court bar or, in the alternative, inform the court of his intention to pro-
ceed pro se. DiCarlo's failure to comply with these clear and explicit
orders in the face of adequate warning of the consequences, persuades
us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
action. See National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club,
Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-
96 (4th Cir. 1989).

We therefore affirm the orders of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3