William Caradine/Assabur, II v. John Doe

Eighth Circuit

William Caradine/Assabur, II v. John Doe

419 F. App'x 703

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 2011

Docket11-1688

StatusUnpublished

This text of 419 F. App'x 703 (William Caradine/Assabur, II v. John Doe) 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

William Caradine/Assabur, II v. John Doe, 419 F. App'x 703 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate William F. Cara-dine/Assabur, II (Caradine) appeals from the district court’s 1 dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Caradine has also filed in this court various motions requesting, among other things, additional relief and disclosure of his medical records. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court’s dismissal without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. See Nw. Bank & Trust Co. v. First III. Nat’l Bank, 354 F.3d 721, 725 (8th Cir.2003) (district court’s application of its local rules reviewed for abuse of discretion); Settlemire v. Watson, 877 F.2d 13, 14 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of pro se complaint where plaintiff failed to comply with court order to amend complaint within thirty days, and district court dismissed complaint without prejudice under local rule allowing dismissal where litigant fails to respond to communication of court within thirty days); cf. Boyle v. Am. Auto Serv., Inc., 571 F.3d 734, 741^2 (8th Cir.2009) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. In addition, all of Caradine’s pending motions are denied as moot.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, 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

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate William F. Cara-dine/Assabur, II (Caradine) appeals from the district court’s 1 dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Caradine has also filed in this court various motions requesting, among other things, additional relief and disclosure of his medical records. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court’s dismissal without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. See Nw. Bank & Trust Co. v. First III. Nat’l Bank, 354 F.3d 721, 725 (8th Cir.2003) (district court’s application of its local rules reviewed for abuse of discretion); Settlemire v. Watson, 877 F.2d 13, 14 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of pro se complaint where plaintiff failed to comply with court order to amend complaint within thirty days, and district court dismissed complaint without prejudice under local rule allowing dismissal where litigant fails to respond to communication of court within thirty days); cf. Boyle v. Am. Auto Serv., Inc., 571 F.3d 734, 741^2 (8th Cir.2009) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. In addition, all of Caradine’s pending motions are denied as moot.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 F. App'x 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-caradineassabur-ii-v-john-doe-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack