United States ex rel. Peter C. v. Bald Head Island Limited
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. PETER C. CURNIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BALD HEAD ISLAND LIMITED, a Texas limited partnership; MARK D. MITCHELL, general partner; MICHAEL K. MITCHELL, general partner, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cv-00174-F)
March 26, 2009
May 21, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank X. Moore, FRANK X. MOORE & ASSOCIATES, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Peter C. Curnin appeals the district court's order
dismissing with prejudice, * for failure to prosecute, his action brought on behalf of the United States under the qui tam
provisions of the civil False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (2006). Although the district court cited no authority for its
order, it appears that it intended to dismiss Curnin's action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, and Rule 41(b) "provides an explicit basis for this sanction." 33, 34 (4th Cir. 1991). the district the court need must to Doyle v. Murray, 938 F.2d
Because dismissal is a severe sanction, exercise this power with with restraint, public
policy of deciding cases on their merits.
Dove v. CODESCO, 569
F.2d 807, 810 (4th Cir. 1978) (citing Reizakis v. Loy, 490 F.2d 1132, 1135 (4th Cir. 1974)). This Circuit therefore requires a
trial court to consider four factors before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute: "(1) the plaintiff's degree of
personal responsibility; (2) the amount of prejudice caused the Because the district court did not specify whether the dismissal was without prejudice, and because the dismissal was not based upon lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party, the dismissal is with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
presence in a
history and (4)
Hillig v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 916 F.2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990). Although the district court stated that it dismissed Curnin's action for failure to request issuance of summons or to serve the Defendants within a reasonable amount of time, the record is silent as to whether the district court considered the above factors in dismissing the action with prejudice. have no basis for assessing the district court's ruling. Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal. that, assuming the district court intended to We remand so exercise its Thus, we
authority under Rule 41(b), the court may apply the appropriate four-part prejudice Curnin's analysis is in determining If the whether court we dismissal to with
appropriate. on another
clarify its reasoning.
We express no opinion as to whether
dismissal with prejudice is appropriate under any analysis, as the district court is in the best position to make this
determination in the first instance. seal as moot.
We deny Curnin's motion to
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
process. VACATED AND REMANDED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?