Lu v. Boulter

First Circuit

Lu v. Boulter

89 F. App'x 283

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 2004

Docket03-2188

StatusPublished

This text of 89 F. App'x 283 (Lu v. Boulter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lu v. Boulter, 89 F. App'x 283 (1st Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a thorough review of the record and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Appellant refused to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and the orders of two district judges. Under these circumstances, the district court was well within its discretion to impose a monetary sanction on appellant, and then to dismiss the case when appellant refused to pay the sanction.

Appellant’s “Informative Motion and Suggestion of Recusal,” which we treat as a motion to reconsider the court’s order dated November 21, 2003, is denied.

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

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

PER CURIAM.

After a thorough review of the record and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Appellant refused to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and the orders of two district judges. Under these circumstances, the district court was well within its discretion to impose a monetary sanction on appellant, and then to dismiss the case when appellant refused to pay the sanction.

Appellant’s “Informative Motion and Suggestion of Recusal,” which we treat as a motion to reconsider the court’s order dated November 21, 2003, is denied.

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 F. App'x 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lu-v-boulter-ca1-2004.