eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2014-11

Henry Okpala v. Computer Sciences Corporation , 585 F. App'x 298 ( 2014 )


Menu:
 
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1627
HENRY UCHE OKPALA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, CSC,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ROBIN SCHERMERHORN, CSC; DAVID H. MARTIN, CSC; WILLIAM
SHOCKRO, CSC; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, CMS,
Third Party,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-03614-JFM)
Submitted:   November 24, 2014              Decided:   November 26, 2014
Before WYNN and      DIAZ,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Uche Okpala, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan M. Greene, Samuel
Zurik, III, KULLMAN FIRM, PC, New Orleans, Louisiana; Frank
Daniel Wood,   Jr.,   KULLMAN   FIRM,   Birmingham,   Alabama,   for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Henry Uche Okpala appeals the district court’s order
dismissing with prejudice his wrongful termination action for
misconduct during discovery.                  We vacate and remand for further
proceedings.
A district court may dismiss a civil action if a party
fails to comply with a discovery order or attend a properly
noticed       deposition.         Fed.      R.     Civ.    P.    37(b),      (d).        Such
dismissals      are    reviewed      for      an   abuse    of    discretion.            Nat’l
Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc.,
    427 U.S. 639
    , 642
(1976); see Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs.,
Inc.,
    872 F.2d 88
    , 92 (4th Cir. 1989) (discussing factors courts
consider      before    imposing     sanctions        under       Rule    37);    see    also
Ballard v. Carlson,
    882 F.2d 93
    , 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (setting
forth factors courts entertaining dismissal under Fed. R. Civ.
P.    41(b)    should    consider).           We    require      district     courts      “to
provide explicit and clear notice when they intend to dismiss
the    plaintiff’s       action      with        prejudice”      as   a    sanction       for
misconduct.       Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Goodwin & Boone,
    11 F.3d 469
    , 471-72 (4th Cir. 1993).
Upon     review   of      the      record,    we     conclude       that    the
district court failed to provide such notice before ordering the
dismissal of Okpala’s suit.                Accordingly, we vacate the order of
dismissal       and    remand     for      proceedings          consistent       with     this
3
opinion.    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal    contentions    are   adequately   presented     in   the   materials
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid    the   decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4