Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jackson v. Lewis Food Town Inc, 06-20198 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-20198 Visitors: 21
Filed: Oct. 20, 2006
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 October 20, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk _ No. 06-20198 Summary Calendar _ CLIFTON JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LEWIS FOOD TOWN, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston USDC No. 4:04-CV-2432 _ Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The appellant only complains of his t
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 20, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk _____________________ No. 06-20198 Summary Calendar _____________________ CLIFTON JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LEWIS FOOD TOWN, INC., Defendant-Appellee. __________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston USDC No. 4:04-CV-2432 __________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The appellant only complains of his treatment by his former employer and does not address the reason why the district court dismissed his lawsuit. Our examination of * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 1 the record reveals that the dismissal was in accord with the rules and within the discretion of the court. For many months the magistrate judge, district judge, and counsel for Lewis Food Town patiently and properly sought to obtain from the appellant information supporting his claim. The Rules of Civil Procedure were followed and appellant was informed of what was required and what consequences could result from failure to comply. Because appellant continued to refuse to comply, Rule 37(b)(2)(C) warrants the judgment of dismissal. AFFIRMED. 2
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