Marsett Stevenson v. Alan Bartlo

8 F. App'x 580
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 7, 2001
Docket00-2857
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 F. App'x 580 (Marsett Stevenson v. Alan Bartlo) 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.

Bluebook
Marsett Stevenson v. Alan Bartlo, 8 F. App'x 580 (8th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marsett Stevenson brought an employment discrimination action. After defendants reminded Stevenson three times of the date chosen for his deposition, he failed to appear for the deposition. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as a sanction; Stevenson did not respond. The District Court 1 then ordered Stevenson to pay the costs of the deposition within fifteen days or suffer dismissal. When that period passed without Stevenson’s payment or response, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. Stevenson appeals. We conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Stevenson’s complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d); Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir.2000) (standard of review); Aziz v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir.1994) (Rule 37(d) authorizes dismissal if party fails to appear for his deposition), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1090, 115 S.Ct. 752, 130 L.Ed.2d 652 (1995).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

Related

Schurman v. Payer
D. South Dakota, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 F. App'x 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marsett-stevenson-v-alan-bartlo-ca8-2001.