Kevin Terrance Hannon v. Kathryn Reid


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Duane Benton, Pasco M. Bowman and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); [4074909-2] Denying appellant's motion for protective order. [4119296] [13-3010]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3010 ___________________________ Kevin Terrance Hannon lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Kathryn Reid, sued in her individual and official capacity lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: January 31, 2014 Filed: January 31, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kevin Terrance Hannon appeals the district court’s1 dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as a sanction for his failure to comply with 1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. Appellate Case: 13-3010 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2014 Entry ID: 4119296 discovery orders, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). After carefully reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court holds that the district court did not clearly err when it found that Hannon willfully violated the discovery orders, thereby prejudicing the defendant, and did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the sanction of dismissal. See Keefer v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 238 F.3d 937, 940-41 (8th Cir. 2000) (dismissal with prejudice may be imposed only if plaintiff willfully violated discovery order and prejudiced defendant; appellate court reviews district court’s discovery sanctions for abuse of discretion and closely scrutinizes sanction of dismissal); Rodgers v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 135 F.3d 1216, 1219-20 (8th Cir. 1998) (district court’s determination that party willfully disregarded court orders is factual finding reviewed for clear error). Hannon also filed an appellate motion for a protective order, which is denied. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 13-3010 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2014 Entry ID: 4119296

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?