From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. Margaretten Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Nov 14, 1996
100 F.3d 950 (4th Cir. 1996)

Summary

affirming dismissal under Rule 41(b) where, inter alia, plaintiff was "personally involved in proceedings had personal knowledge of the dangers of failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines" "the history of proceedings demonstrate[d] nothing but continual warnings from the court of the need to comply with court orders" "none of [plaintiff's] filings were timely," and defendant was prejudiced by having "to expend resources to defend a suit and attempt trial preparation without the required participation by [plaintiff]."

Summary of this case from Lee v. N-Link Corp.

Opinion

No. 95-1975.

November 14, 1996.

E.D.Va.


AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Harris v. Margaretten Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Nov 14, 1996
100 F.3d 950 (4th Cir. 1996)

affirming dismissal under Rule 41(b) where, inter alia, plaintiff was "personally involved in proceedings had personal knowledge of the dangers of failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines" "the history of proceedings demonstrate[d] nothing but continual warnings from the court of the need to comply with court orders" "none of [plaintiff's] filings were timely," and defendant was prejudiced by having "to expend resources to defend a suit and attempt trial preparation without the required participation by [plaintiff]."

Summary of this case from Lee v. N-Link Corp.

noting that the defendant's “distinction between arson and attempted arson is immaterial. Arson or attempted arson, by their very nature, pose serious potential risk of physical injury to other persons.... Adkison's inability to consummate the arson does not negate the risk of harm.”

Summary of this case from United States v. Fallins

noting that the defendant's “distinction between arson and attempted arson is immaterial. Arson or attempted arson, by their very nature, pose serious potential risk of physical injury to other persons.... Adkison's inability to consummate the arson does not negate the risk of harm.”

Summary of this case from United States v. Fallins

applying Maryland law in order to uphold the constitutionality of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provisions regarding homosexuality, and determining that equal protection does not mandate strict scrutiny

Summary of this case from Conaway v. Deane
Case details for

Harris v. Margaretten Co.

Case Details

Full title:Harris v. Margaretten Co

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Nov 14, 1996

Citations

100 F.3d 950 (4th Cir. 1996)

Citing Cases

In re Morris

A creditor who acts to collect on its debt without obtaining relief from the stay violates the co-debtor…

W. Va. Auto. & Truck Dealers Ass'n v. Ford Motor Co.

Even if this were a claim for past conduct rather than a claim for prospective relief resolved by a mutual…