Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc.

First Circuit

Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc.

48 F. App'x 4

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 199 F.3d 68 →

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided October 18, 2002·No. 01-1833·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After carefully reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm substantially for the reasons given by the district court. Despite notice and without excuse, the appellant failed to carry out the court’s orders concerning discovery and sanctions. He also burdened the court and the appellee with needless delays. Robson v. Hollenbeck, 81 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. One 1987 BMW, 985 F.2d 655, 657 (1st Cir.1993). The court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action. Velazquez-Rivera v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 920 F.2d 1072 (1st Cir.1990).

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After carefully reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm substantially for the reasons given by the district court. Despite notice and without excuse, the appellant failed to carry out the court’s orders concerning discovery and sanctions. He also burdened the court and the appellee with needless delays. Robson v. Hollenbeck, 81 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. One 1987 BMW, 985 F.2d 655, 657 (1st Cir.1993). The court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action. Velazquez-Rivera v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 920 F.2d 1072 (1st Cir.1990).

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).

Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc., 48 F. App'x 4 (1st Cir. 2002).

Pincite

48 F. App'x 4 (Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related