Cornelius Williams, Jr. v. Corizon, No. 17-2210 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case without prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff's failures to comply with discovery and appear for his deposition.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2210 ___________________________ Cornelius Williams, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Corizon and/or Correctional Medical Services (CMS), et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: March 6, 2018 Filed: March 9, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Cornelius Williams appeals after the district court1 dismissed his complaint, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute or 1 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. otherwise comply with court orders. He challenges the dismissal and argues he should have been appointed counsel. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this action without prejudice. Williams’s failed to comply with court-ordered discovery deadlines and failed to appear for his noticed deposition, ignoring the warning given in the court’s scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), (d), 41(b); Lindstedt v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2000) (pro se litigant bound to meet simple discovery requirements); Aziz v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1994) (Rule 41(b) dismissal not an abuse of district court’s broad discretion to impose sanctions after the court warned that dismissal would be consequence of party’s discovery non-compliance); Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1983). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams appointed counsel in this civil case. See Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
