Marlin Jones v. Terry Burns
This text of 373 F. App'x 658 (Marlin Jones v. Terry Burns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Marlin E. Jones appeals the district court’s 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. We conclude that dismissal was not an abuse of discretion because, without sufficient justification, Jones did not attend the final pretrial conference and did not appear for trial. See DuBose v. Minnesota, 893 F.2d 169, 171 (8th Cir.1990) (standard of review; affirming Rule 41(b) dismissal where pro se plaintiff failed to attend pretrial conference or appear for trial). We likewise conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel to represent Jones, see Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review; outlining factors), or in denying Jones’s late-tendered motion to transfer venue, see Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 696 (8th Cir.1997) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
373 F. App'x 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlin-jones-v-terry-burns-ca8-2010.