Court Opinion

ID: 2966103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:48:54.040659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:08.687775
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 99-1455

                      JESUS M. PADRO-MEDINA,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant.
                     ______________________
                                
               IVELISSE MALDONADO-RIVERA, ET AL.,
                                
                          Plaintiffs,
                                
                               v.
                                
JAIME G. MIGUELES, ANGEL CARLO-GUTIERREZ AND PEDRO TOLEDO-DAVILA,
                            ET AL.,
                                
                     Defendants, Appellees.
                                
                                
                                
          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                
                FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
                                
       [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                
                                
                                
                             Before
                                
                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
               Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
     Lydia Lizarribar-Masini, on brief for plaintiff Jesus M.
Padro-Medina.
     Gustavo A. Gelpi, Solicitor General, Edda Serrano-Blasini,
Deputy Solicitor General, and Sylvia Roger Stefani, Assistant
Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on brief for appellees
Pedro Toledo, Jaime Migueles and Angel Carlo-Gutierrez.

December 9, 1999

            Per Curiam.  After a careful review of the record and
  the submissions of the parties, we affirm.  The record before
  us shows "extremely protracted inaction (measured in years)
  [and] disobedience of court orders."  Benjamin v. Aroostook
  Medical Ctr., Inc., 57 F.3d 101, 108 (1st Cir. 1995) (quotation
  marks and citation omitted).  The case was over three and one-
  half years old when it was dismissed, during which time counsel
  for appellant served only one set of interrogatories, failed to
  respond to her opponent's interrogatories, failed to answer a
  motion to dismiss, and missed without notice or excuse the only
  depositions she scheduled.  Counsel failed to appear at a
  status conference as ordered by the court, and then failed to
  explain her absence from that conference when defendants sought
  dismissal.  The court did not abuse its discretion in removing
  this case from its docket.  Angulo-Alvarez v. Aponte de la
  Torre, 170 F.3d 246, 251 (1st Cir. 1999) (dismissals under
  Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) reviewed for abuse of discretion) 
  (citations omitted).
            Affirmed.  1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).