Pate v. Regency Subaru, Inc., 97-60047 (1997)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 97-60047
Visitors: 16
Filed: Oct. 29, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 97-60047 Summary Calendar SUE H. PATE Plaintiff-Appellant VERSUS REGENCY SUBARU, INC. Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi (3:95-CV-309-BN) October 2, 1997 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Appellant appeals the dismissal of her sex discrimination suit against her former employer. The district court dismissed the action under Rule 37 for numerou
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 97-60047 Summary Calendar SUE H. PATE Plaintiff-Appellant VERSUS REGENCY SUBARU, INC. Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi (3:95-CV-309-BN) October 2, 1997 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Appellant appeals the dismissal of her sex discrimination suit against her former employer. The district court dismissed the action under Rule 37 for numerous..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 97-60047 Summary Calendar SUE H. PATE Plaintiff-Appellant VERSUS REGENCY SUBARU, INC. Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi (3:95-CV-309-BN) October 2, 1997 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Appellant appeals the dismissal of her sex discrimination suit against her former employer. The district court dismissed the action under Rule 37 for numerous discovery abuses after repeated warnings and the imposition of lesser sanctions. Our review of the record and the parties’ briefs convinces us that the district court 1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. has not abused its discretion. Accordingly, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its Opinion and Order filed November 14, 1996, we AFFIRM. 2
Source: CourtListener
