William Caradine/Assabur, II v. John Doe


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: MICHAEL J. MELLOY, RAYMOND W. GRUENDER and DUANE BENTON (UNPUBLISHED); all of appellant's pending motions are denied as moot. [3796163-2] [3793278-2] [3779617-2] [3793273-2] [3802597] [11-1688]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1688 ___________ William F. Caradine/Assabur, II, Appellant, v. John Doe, Manager, Sonic Drive-In, Inc., Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: June 23, 2011 Filed: June 29, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate William F. Caradine/Assabur, II (Caradine) appeals from the district court’s1 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 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 11-1688 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2011 Entry ID: 3802597 discretion. See Nw. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Ill. 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, 741-42 (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. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 11-1688 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2011 Entry ID: 3802597

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?