Summary
affirming Rule 41(b) dismissal after plaintiff failed to attend court-ordered deposition without notice or excuse after court had warned plaintiff that failure to attend deposition could result in dismissal
Summary of this case from Huffman v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.Opinion
No. 13-2474
02-07-2014
Maria C. Roldan-Tennant, also known as Maria C. Roldan Plaintiff - Appellant v. QCR Holdings, Inc. c/o Douglas Hultquist, CEO; Quad City Bank and Trust, Co. Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
[Unpublished]
Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Maria Roldan-Tennant appeals following the district court's dismissal of her civil action, upon motion by defendants below, for failure to comply with court rules and orders. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Roldan-Tennant's repeated motions seeking recusal. See Am. Prairie Constr. Co. v. Hoich, 560 F.3d 780, 789-90 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). We also conclude that the district court was well within its discretion to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Among other conduct demonstrating a refusal to cooperate in discovery matters, Roldan-Tennant failed to attend a court-ordered deposition and a court-ordered motions hearing--without giving the district court any notice or excuse--even after the court expressly warned Roldan-Tennant that failure to cooperate in pretrial discovery and to attend a properly noticed deposition could result in dismissal of her suit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); DiMercurio v. Malcolm, 716 F.3d 1138, 1139-40 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review).
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant appellees' motion to strike.