Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rudolph CLINE-THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin KEELS, Jr.; Global Management Group, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Corporate Athletic Management, Inc., Defendant.
Rudolph Cline-Thomas appeals the district court's order dismissing his case against Alvin Keels, Jr., for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). He contends that, in considering the relevant four-factor test, see Hillig v. Comm'r, 916 F.2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990), the court abused its discretion in doing so. We affirm.
We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Under the abuse of discretion standard, [we] may not substitute [our] judgment for that of the district court; rather, [we] must determine whether the [district] court's exercise of discretion, considering the law and the facts, was arbitrary or capricious.” United States v. Vidacak, 553 F.3d 344, 348 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we conclude that, based on the Hillig factors, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Cline-Thomas’ case against Keels for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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.
AFFIRMED
I conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case pursuant to Rule 41(b). Accordingly, I would vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings.
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Agee dissents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-2454
Decided: November 20, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)