From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thanedar v. Time Warner Communications

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 10, 2007
227 F. App'x 385 (5th Cir. 2007)

Summary

affirming the dismissal "[i]n light of [Plaintiff's] serially contumacious conduct"

Summary of this case from Nelsoney v. Midway Oilfield Constructors, Inc.

Opinion

No. 06-20220.

May 10, 2007.

Jon Daniel Brooks, Brooks LLP, Corpus Christi, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

R. Michael Moore, Law Office of R. Michael Moore, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States district court for the Southern District of Texas, Case No. 4:04-CV-4188.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.


Chandrashekhar B. Thanedar appeals the dismissal with prejudice of this action brought against Time Warner Communications of Houston, LLP, and seventeen other corporate entities, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Having considered the briefs and pertinent parts of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering dismissal in response to Thanedar's failure to comply with discovery orders, see FED.R.CIV.P. 37(d), and failure to prosecute his lawsuit. See FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b). In light of Thanedar's serially contumacious conduct, we like wise find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Appellant's motions for continuance. Finally, Thanedar's due process claim that Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), entitled him to a predismissal hearing is frivolous. Mathews requires the articulation of due process standards; a federal court's procedures, specified in the Federal Rules, are clearly as certainable. When, as here, a party is shown to have been "deliberately proceeding in a dilatory fashion, "a district court may dismiss a case "without affording notice of its intention to do so or providing an adversary hearing before acting." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1390, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Price v. McGlatkery, 792 F.2d 472, 475-76 (5th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Thanedar v. Time Warner Communications

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 10, 2007
227 F. App'x 385 (5th Cir. 2007)

affirming the dismissal "[i]n light of [Plaintiff's] serially contumacious conduct"

Summary of this case from Nelsoney v. Midway Oilfield Constructors, Inc.

affirming dismissal "[i]n light of [the plaintiff's] serially contumacious conduct"

Summary of this case from Barrackman v. Banister

affirming dismissal "[i]n light of [Plaintiff's] serially contumacious conduct"

Summary of this case from Tip Systems, LLC v. SBC Operations, Inc.
Case details for

Thanedar v. Time Warner Communications

Case Details

Full title:Chandrashekhar B. THANEDAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIME WARNER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 10, 2007

Citations

227 F. App'x 385 (5th Cir. 2007)

Citing Cases

Tip Systems, LLC v. SBC Operations, Inc.

The Fifth Circuit has affirmed dismissals only in cases where a party repeatedly failed to comply with court…

Thanedar v. Time Warner, Inc.

A panel of this court affirmed the dismissal, observing that Thanedar had engaged in "serially contumacious…