Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McDonald v. Bellsouth Telecom, 04-30662 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 04-30662 Visitors: 23
Filed: May 11, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 11, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-30662 Summary Calendar EMMA W. MCDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 02-CV-1326 - Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant Emma McDonald brought dis
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 11, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-30662 Summary Calendar EMMA W. MCDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 02-CV-1326 -------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant Emma McDonald brought discrimination claims against Appellee Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. McDonald filed her lawsuit on the last day before the limitations period for her claims expired. McDonald did not have service made on Appellee. Under threat of dismissal for failure to prosecute she ultimately had service made. McDonald did not appear for a noticed deposition. There were no objections filed to the * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. notice. Counsel for Appellee traveled to the out of state deposition only to be subjected to McDonald’s failure to appear. McDonald was then ordered to appear for deposition. She did not appear although aware of the order to appear for deposition. McDonald now complains of the dismissal of her claim for failure to comply with the court’s orders. We find no merit in her claims that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing her claims. The record reflects a willful and intentional disregard of required appearances for depositions in McDonald’s own lawsuit. No abuse has been shown. We find her argument meritless and her authority inapposite. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer