Donald George v. S&S Tire - Bestone Tire

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 16, 2026
• Docket: 25-12203
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12203 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12203 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

DONALD A. GEORGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

S&S TIRE - BESTONE TIRE, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cv-01123-ACA ____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Donald George, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his pro se civil action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, USCA11 Case: 25-12203 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12203

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 for failure to comply with its order directing him to file an amended complaint. On appeal, George argues that the district court improperly dismissed his suit without offering any facts or evidence to support its imposition of sanctions, and asserts that a 2021 stipulation agreement between him and S&S Firestone, Inc., entered during a prior lawsuit, was binding in this current lawsuit. We review a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) dismissal for abuse of discretion. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). A district court abuses its discre- tion when it applies the wrong legal standard, follows the wrong procedures, or makes a clearly erroneous finding of fact. Ass’n of Disabled Ams. v. Neptune Designs, Inc., 469 F.3d 1357, 1359 (11th Cir. 2006). Rule 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action for, among other reasons, failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Gratton, 178 F.3d at 1374. Moreover, “dismis- sal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dis- missing George’s suit without prejudice under Rule 41(b) because he did not comply with its order requiring him to file an amended complaint. AFFIRMED.