Summary
affirming dismissal of action under Rule 37 as a sanction against pro se party for not complying with discovery orders
Summary of this case from T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. TerryOpinion
No. 09-35151.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed July 20, 2010.
Ian A. McElroy, Lake Oswego, OR, pro se.
Robert Edward Franz, Jr., Law Office of Robert E. Franz, Jr., Springfield, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 6:00-cv-06318-HO.
Before: ALARCON, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ian A. McElroy appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) for failure' to comply with discovery orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503. 507 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after finding that McElroy's failure to comply with its discovery orders indicated willfulness and bad faith and after properly considering the pertinent factors for determining whether to dismiss under Rule 37. See id. at 507-08.
McElroy's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
McElroy's request for judicial notice is granted.