UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-10978
Summary Calendar
_______________________
BILL STEPHENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LAQUITTA POLVADORE; SCOTT MORRISON; JOHN LESLY;
TOM LESLY; GERALD MCDOUGALL; RANDY SHERROD;
DEBBIE ZVOLAR; MIKE MILLER, Sargent; TRACY HALL,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(2:94-CV-175)
_________________________________________________________________
May 12, 1997
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Stephens complains of the district court’s
dismissal of his section 1983 complaint for failure to comply with
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
a June 1994 court order requiring him (1) to submit additional
copies of his complaint for service on the nine named defendants
and (2) to file a complete and correct IFP application or pay the
court filing fee. Stephens said he complied with the first
requirement; the magistrate judge and district court believed he
did not. Stephens’s attempt to re-file his IFP request again
yielded an incomplete application.
After attempting to comply with the magistrate judge’s
order in July, 1994, Stephens did nothing on the case for seven
months, when he wrote an inquiry about its status to the court. In
June, 1995, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b) for Stephens’s failure to comply with the
court’s order of June 24, 1994. Stephens filed objections to the
recommendation on the basis that he had submitted extra copies of
the complaint. Stephens made no mention of the still-erroneous IFP
application. The district court overruled Stephens’s objections
and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge,
dismissing the complaint.
Although Stephens argues that the district court abused
its discretion by dismissing his complaint for failure to comply
with the June 1994 order, he nowhere addresses the fact that he has
not yet provided a properly completed application for IFP status.
Rule 41(b) allows the court sua sponte to dismiss an action with
prejudice for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court
2
order. We review such a dismissal for an abuse of discretion.
Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992).
We find no abuse of discretion here. The magistrate judge’s June
1994 order painstakingly explained what it required of Stephens.
Even if there is a dispute whether he submitted the correct number
of copies of his complaint to the court, he has never provided any
explanation for his still-deficient IFP application. Stephens
could have complied with the court’s order easily. Moreover,
because he had another lawsuit pending in the court at the time, we
assume he had some familiarity with court procedures. Under the
circumstances, Stephen’s continued ignoring of the court’s order
means that no lesser sanction than dismissal would have been
appropriate. Stephens’s failure to comply with the court’s order
and delay in pursuing the matter justified the court’s employment
of the “extreme sanction” of dismissal. Berry, 975 F.2d at 1191.
Under the facts above stated, this case is similar to our
recent decision in Dorsey v. Scottwetzel Services, Inc., 84 F.3d
170 (5th Cir. 1996), where we also affirmed a Rule 41(b) dismissal
for a plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with court scheduling
orders. This court concluded that “there were no lesser sanctions
available to the trial court that would have served the best
interests of justice.” Id. at 171. Even though the trial court
did not expressly so conclude, it is true in this case that lesser
3
sanctions would not have been appropriate against Stephens’s
stubborn refusal to follow the court’s orders.
AFFIRMED.
4