Court Opinion

ID: 9403978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:01:05.596233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.494202
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2304      Doc: 14         Filed: 06/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2304

        HARRY HILL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        B. FRANK JOY, L.L.C.,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:16-cv-01707-TDC; 8:15-cv-01123-TDC)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Harry Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Maurice Baskin, Brandon Robert Mita, LITTLER
        MENDELSON PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2304         Doc: 14      Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Harry Hill appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee’s motion for sanctions

        and dismissing Hill’s complaints pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). We have

        reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

        dismissing the actions. See Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639,

        642 (1976) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Hill v.

        B. Frank Joy, L.L.C., Nos. 8:16-cv-01707-TDC; 8:15-cv-01123-TDC (D. Md.

        Nov. 8, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     2