Case Information
*1 cv Katz UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J ANUARY PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F EDERAL R ULE OF A PPELLATE P ROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER F EDERAL A PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOTATION ʺ SUMMARY ORDER ʺ A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
At stated term United States Appeals Second Circuit, held Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in New York, th day October, two thousand sixteen. PRESENT: DENNY CHIN,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges
BRIAN M. COGAN,
District Judge Appellant cv
JOETTE KATZ, capacity CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN FAMILIES,
Judge Brian M. Cogan, Eastern York, sitting designation.
Defendants Appellees FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT: A. pro se , Milford, Connecticut. DEFENDANTS APPELLEES: JENNIFER P. BENNETT, Assistant Attorney
General (George Jepsen, Attorney General, Ann E. Lynch, Assistant Attorney General, brief ), Office Attorney General, Hartford, Connecticut.
Appeal from a judgment for Connecticut (Thompson, J.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED judgment is AFFIRMED appellant Linda Lee, pro se , appeals from entered September favor defendants appellees Joette Katz, Connecticut Department Children Families. On granted defendants ʹ motion to dismiss with prejudice claims under Rehabilitation Act, U.S.C. § et seq. Americans with Disabilities Act, U.S.C. § et seq. pursuant to Federal Rules Civil Procedure 37(b) 41(b), failure to comply with obligations. review imposition sanctions, including under Rules discretion. Agiwal Mid Island Mortg. Corp. is directed amend caption to conform above. *3 F.3d (2d Cir. 2009) (Rule 37); Lewis Rawson F.3d 575 (2d Cir. 2009) (Rule 41). evaluating district court examine, among other things, the following factors: ʺ (1) the willfulness the non compliant party or the reason noncompliance; (2) efficacy lesser sanctions; (3) duration the period noncompliance[;] and (4) whether non compliant party had been warned consequences noncompliance. ʺ Agiwal, F.3d at (quoting Nieves York F.R.D. (S.D.N.Y. 2002)); see also Lewis F.3d 576. reviewed district court thorough and well reasoned decision and that district court did not action prejudice. The district court carefully reviewed facts and procedural history weighed relevant factors. The noted that Lee had been reminded discovery obligations warned consequences numerous occasions. The concluded that noncompliance was willful, she responded directly explaining why she was not complying reasons she gave were ʺ unsupported. ʺ The found that ʺ high degree intractability willfulness ʺ showed she was ʺ unpersuadable ʺ that dismissal was therefore ʺ appropriate. ʺ also duration noncompliance (from January through 2015) numerous extensions had been granted. *4 light ʹ repeated willful scheduling orders, we acted within case. all remaining arguments find them be
without merit. Accordingly, AFFIRM court. COURT:
Catherine O Hagan Wolfe,