F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 22 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
BOB J. SETTLE,
Plaintiff-Counter-
Defendant-Appellant,
No. 98-2066
v. (D.C. No. CIV-96-1434-LH)
(D. N.M.)
JON BRIM; MICHAEL LAYER;
ALAN MILLER; and INFINITY
GROUP, INC.,
Defendants-
Counterclaimants-
Appellees,
and
JIM VALENTINE and BENJAMIN
BEVILLE,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , EBEL , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Bob J. Settle is a pro se litigant who sued his former business
partners alleging RICO violations, breach of contract, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and interference with business expectancy. After filing his
complaint in October 1996, Mr. Settle repeatedly refused to answer defendants’
interrogatories and requests for production, raising numerous objections to all of
defendants’ discovery requests. The magistrate judge ordered Mr. Settle to
comply with defendants’ discovery requests but, because he was proceeding pro
se, also ordered simplified interrogatories so that Mr. Settle could respond as
simply and conveniently as possible. The magistrate judge also granted Mr. Settle
an extension of time in which to respond to the discovery requests. Despite these
accommodations, Mr. Settle continued to raise numerous objections to
defendants’ discovery requests and to refuse to cooperate in discovery. In
September 1997, the magistrate judge entered an order giving Mr. Settle still
additional time to comply with the discovery requests, with an explicit warning
that he risked dismissal of his action if he did not comply. Notwithstanding this
-2-
warning, Mr. Settle failed to comply with the September 1997 discovery order or
to cooperate in the discovery process.
In January 1998, when Mr. Settle still had not complied with the September
1997 discovery order, the magistrate judge recommended Mr. Settle’s action be
dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) and 41(b) because of
his repeated failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
court orders regarding discovery. The magistrate judge concluded Mr. Settle had
failed to comply with every discovery order of the magistrate judge, that no
discovery had been completed in the action more than a year after its filing and
that defendants had been prejudiced as a result of Mr. Settle’s repeated refusal to
cooperate in the discovery process. The magistrate judge noted that Mr. Settle
had been warned dismissal was a likely result of continued noncompliance, and
concluded that no sanction other than dismissal would be effective. The district
court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation after reviewing the record
de novo, and dismissed Mr. Settle’s complaint with prejudice.
Mr. Settle appeals this dismissal, raising the same objections to discovery
that he repeatedly made before the magistrate judge. We review the imposition of
sanctions for abuse of discretion. See Mobley v. McCormick , 40 F.3d 337, 340
(10th Cir. 1994). Although dismissal is a drastic sanction, our case law makes it
clear that a district judge may dismiss an action for discovery violations. See
-3-
Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds , 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (authorizing a court to enter an order dismissing the
action if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery”). The
magistrate judge and the district court considered all of the appropriate factors
under Jones v. Thompson , 996 F.2d 261, 264 (10th Cir. 1993) and Ehrenhaus , 965
F.2d at 920-21. The record shows that Mr. Settle abused the discovery process
and flouted several court orders compelling compliance with discovery. We find
that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing this action and we
affirm the dismissal for substantially the reasons set forth in the thorough report
of the magistrate judge dated January 21, 1998, and the district court’s
February 11, 1998 order adopting this report.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-