-
906 F.2d 360·
8th Cir.·
1990-06-22
·cited 3×
The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no clear error in the determination that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory discharge or retaliation.
-
951 F.2d 108·
6th Cir.·
1991-12-16
·cited 2×
The relaxed pleading standard for pro se litigants does not extend to procedural matters like court-imposed discovery deadlines.
-
874 F.2d 454·
7th Cir.·
1989-05-05
·cited 2×
-
811 F.2d 1330·
9th Cir.·
1987-03-04
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the plaintiff's testimony as a sanction for nonresponsive and evasive answers, nor in dismissing the case thereafter.
-
805 F.2d 1171·
5th Cir.·
1986-10-23
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court erred by devising a non-discriminatory reason for the employer's actions, rather than requiring the employer to articulate such a reason.
-
803 F.2d 215·
6th Cir.·
1986-09-12
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff's notice of appeal was untimely because the underlying Rule 52(b) motion was not filed within the granted extensions.
-
774 F.2d 409·
10th Cir.·
1985-09-30
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff's case under Rule 41(b) because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and had a full opportunity to present evidence.
-
753 F.2d 527·
6th Cir.·
1985-02-04
·cited 2×
The dissenting judge holds that the magistrate's finding of no discrimination was clearly erroneous because the employee presented sufficient comparative evidence of disparate treatment based on race.
-
614 F.2d 945·
4th Cir.·
1980-02-12
·cited 2×
The court held that dismissing a protective action without prejudice, even for administrative reasons, is unwarranted if it could impose the burden of litigation the protective suit was designed to prevent.
-
441 F.2d 1266·
6th Cir.·
1971-04-29
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support claims of conspiracy, fraudulent inducement, or violation of civil rights, and affirmed the district court's dismissal.
-
303 F.2d 69·
2d Cir.·
1962-05-17
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff did not render the requisite performance under the alleged joint venture agreement, thus precluding recovery.
-
243 F.2d 531·
4th Cir.·
1957-04-09
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to present a jury question on the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence, and that the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act did not bar the action.
-
850 F.2d 446·
8th Cir.·
1988-06-29
·cited 1×
A debtor's false statement in an affidavit that all construction expenses were paid in full, made to induce reliance by a title insurer, constitutes actionable fraud for nondischargeability of the resulting debt, even if the specific liens were not perfected.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-01-29
The court held that the petition for writ of habeas corpus was facially deficient due to a lack of specific factual allegations and granted the petitioner leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2026-01-08
The court dismissed the plaintiff's case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
A defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees as the prevailing party when a plaintiff's case is involuntarily dismissed for failure to prosecute, even if the dismissal is without prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-04
The court held that the plaintiff's claims are time-barred because the current lawsuit was filed outside the statutory limitations period, and the prior dismissal, though without prejudice, was effectively with prejudice due to the statute of limitations.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-10-15
The court recommends dismissal of the complaint without prejudice due to the plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with court orders to file an amended complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-15
This is a civil rights action filed pro se by Michael Eugene Wilks, Jr. against law enforcement officers. The District Court dismissed the case without prejudice for the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders requiring him to file a proper in forma pauperis form and an a
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-18
The court approved the FLSA settlement agreement and dismissed the non-participating plaintiffs with prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-08-04
The court recommends dismissal of the action without prejudice due to the plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with court orders regarding payment of the filing fee or filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-07-17
The court held that continued willful defiance of court orders and rules, including failure to pay sanctions, warranted significant monetary penalties rather than immediate dismissal, but warned of future dismissal for any further non-compliance.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-05-29
The court recommended dismissal of the case for failure to obey court orders and for filing an untimely complaint, finding further amendment would be futile.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-28
The court recommended that the District Court strike Defendants' Answer and Statement of Defenses and enter a default against them for repeated failure to comply with court orders.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-03-20
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings is stricken for failure to comply with local rules and that the case remains closed and terminated.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-28
The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or properly apply to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-21
The court held that while dismissal was too severe a sanction for the plaintiff's failures, monetary sanctions were warranted for missing mediation, and a new compulsory medical examination and mediation must be scheduled.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2024-09-13
The court recommends dismissal of the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to comply with court orders and falsely disclosed his litigation history.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-20
The District Court for the Southern District of Florida struck plaintiffs' amended complaint for failing to comply with a court order requiring them to file a motion for leave before submitting an amended complaint. The court gave plaintiffs a final opportunity to comply or face
-
N.D. Fla.·
2024-07-12
The court held that a plaintiff's refusal to comply with court orders, even if based on a belief that venue is improper, warrants dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-04-02
The court held that the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders regarding service of process and failure to seek an extension warrants dismissal of the action.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-27
The court held that dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) was appropriate due to the plaintiff's prolonged inactivity and lack of sufficient justification.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-02-02
The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim and for seeking monetary relief from immune defendants. The court also dismissed the case for failure to pay the filing fee after a prior dismissal for the same reason.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-07
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, granting one final opportunity to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-07-24
The court held that the plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, despite repeated opportunities, warranted dismissal of the action.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-07-24
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint was a shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, requiring an amended complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-07-12
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint was deficient and ordered him to file an amended complaint to cure pleading deficiencies, including failure to state claims and shotgun pleading violations.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-23
The court held that the action is dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the court-ordered deadline.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-13
Plaintiff Derrick Ray filed a civil rights action against Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, alleging racial discrimination when a Bridgestone employee refused to allow him to purchase tires using his bank card. The district court dismissed the c
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-24
The court held that a pro se plaintiff cannot represent an estate with additional beneficiaries, and dismissal was warranted for failure to comply with court orders to retain counsel.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-12-16
The court held that the claim against Officer Rodriguez may proceed, but all other claims against the remaining defendants are dismissed with prejudice, with leave to amend for excessive force claims against unidentified officers.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-12-01
The court held that the action should be dismissed without prejudice due to the plaintiffs' failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-08-16
The court held that the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case and comply with court orders warrants dismissal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-07-18
The court held that the action must be dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint after being given the opportunity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-07-12
The court held that the action is dismissed without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint by the court-ordered deadline.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-06-17
The court granted in part the defendant's motion for sanctions, ordering plaintiff and her counsel to pay the defendant's reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred due to discovery violations.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-05-25
The court held that a pro se complaint that is incomprehensible and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted must be dismissed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-04-05
The court held that the pro se complaint was incomprehensible and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, warranting dismissal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-02-07
The Court dismissed the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to timely file a Third Amended Complaint as ordered.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-29
The court held that the action is dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis.