F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 8 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
VENITA DE FOE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 00-3191
(D.C. No. 98-CV-2366-JWL)
SPRINT/UNITED MIDWEST (D. Kan.)
MANAGEMENT SERVICES (196 F.R.D. 392)
COMPANY, doing business as Sprint
Long Distance,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE , ANDERSON , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff seeks review of an order of the district court dismissing her
employment discrimination action based on alleged sexual harassment by her
supervisor. The court dismissed the action with prejudice because of plaintiff’s
repeated and wilful disobedience of the court’s orders. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Although plaintiff’s appellate arguments are far from clearly stated, we
have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and are persuaded that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s many motions for default
judgment, which were based on her claim that the defendants named in the
original complaint had not timely answered the complaint. See Dennis Garberg &
Assocs., Inc. v. Pack-Tech Int’l Corp. , 115 F.3d 767, 771 (10th Cir. 1997)
(district court’s decision to enter default judgment is committed to sound
discretion of district court). The district court adequately explained its denial of
plaintiff’s requests for default judgment.
Nor did the court abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s action. See
Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds , 965 F.2d 916, 918 (10th Cir. 1992) (district court has
discretion to dismiss action upon consideration of all relevant factors if dismissal
alone would satisfy interests of justice). The court alerted plaintiff to her need to
comply with its orders and the federal procedural rules. See M.M. v. Zavaras ,
139 F.3d 798, 804 (10th Cir. 1998) (“The record in this case establishes that
-2-
plaintiff was given several opportunities to comply with the federal rules of
procedure governing the case and the orders of the court, and that she was warned
in the event of a failure to do so her case would be dismissed”). We therefore
affirm the district court for substantially the reasons stated in its Memorandum
and Order filed June 15, 2000. See DeFoe v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. , 196
F.R.D. 392 (D. Kan. 2000).
In view of our disposition of this appeal, plaintiff’s motion on “Incorrect
Filing on Defendant’s Name,” and defendant’s motion to strike certain exhibits
attached to plaintiff’s reply brief are denied as moot. Accordingly, the judgment
of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-