591 F.2d 615 (10th Cir. 1979), 78-1300, Petty v. Manpower, Inc.
| Docket Nº: | 78-1300. |
| Citation: | 591 F.2d 615 |
| Party Name: | Dec. P 8990 Forrest PETTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANPOWER, INC., Temporary Services, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Case Date: | February 12, 1979 |
| Court: | United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit |
Page 615
Submitted Dec. 12, 1978.
Page 616
Kenneth N. McKinney, and Sally E. Scott, Oklahoma City, Okl., Atty., filed memorandum supporting summary action on behalf of defendant-appellee.
Before SETH, Chief Judge, and BARRETT and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Forrest Petty seeks review of an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissing without prejudice his pro se complaint for damages filed under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. We affirm.
In March, 1977, appellant filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission a charge of discrimination alleging that appellee had racially discriminated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Act of 1972. Following a full investigation,
Page 617
the Commission concluded that appellant had merely presented assertions of discrimination without factual support, and that there was no cause to believe that Title VII had been violated. Thereafter, within the ninety (90) day time limit set by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) appellant filed this pro se action in district court alleging employment discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, Et seq. In response, appellee filed a motion to dismiss with an alternative motion for summary judgment. A hearing was set for February 27, 1978, with proper notice issued to both parties. When the case was called by the court for hearing, appellant did not appear. As a result an order was entered dismissing without prejudice appellant's complaint for lack of prosecution.
Subsequent to the initial dismissal, appellant notified the court that he had been unable to attend the hearing because of his incarceration in the Oklahoma City Jail. The district court treated appellant's letter as a motion for relief from judgment made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and his case was reopened, with a properly noticed hearing set for March 15, 1978. Once again when appellant's case was called he did not appear, and the second order of dismissal without prejudice of the complaint was entered. From that dismissal appellant has appealed.
...
To continue reading
FREE SIGN UP
-
620 P.2d 744 (Hawai'i App. 1980), 6574, Ellis v. Harland Bartholomew and Associates
...Bagalay v. Lahaina Restoration Foundation, 60 Haw. 125, 588 P.2d 416 (1978); You Dong Men v. Ai, 41 Haw. 574 (1957); Petty v. Manpower, 591 F.2d 615 (10th Cir. 1979); Asociacion de Empleados, Etc. v. Rodriguez Morales, 538 F.2d 915 (1st Cir. 1976); Ali v. A & G Company, 542 F.2d 595 (2n......
-
713 F.2d 568 (10th Cir. 1983), 82-1040, United States v. Berney
...there is an abuse of that discretion. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Petty v. Manpower, Inc., 591 F.2d 615 (10th Cir.1979); Stanley v. Continental Oil Company, 536 F.2d 914 (10th Cir.1976); Davis v. Operation Amigo, Inc., 378 F.2d 101 (10th Cir.1......
-
937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1991), 90-3246, DeBardeleben v. Quinlan
...court "was not so severe a burden as to justify dismissal." Hancock, 857 F.2d at 1396; see also Petty v. Manpower, Inc., 591 F.2d 615 (10th Cir.1979) (dismissing without prejudice when pro se Page 505 failed on two separate occasions to appear for court hearings). Any inconvenienc......
-
592 F.2d 1136 (10th Cir. 1979), 77-1933, Bragg v. Reed
...because of limitations problems or otherwise, the action is treated as final and the order is appealable. Petty v. Manpower, Inc., 591 F.2d 615 (10th Cir. 1979); Coffey v. Whirlpool Corp., 591 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1979). This case certainly meets that criterion. The ruling was that the perio......
-
620 P.2d 744 (Hawai'i App. 1980), 6574, Ellis v. Harland Bartholomew and Associates
...Bagalay v. Lahaina Restoration Foundation, 60 Haw. 125, 588 P.2d 416 (1978); You Dong Men v. Ai, 41 Haw. 574 (1957); Petty v. Manpower, 591 F.2d 615 (10th Cir. 1979); Asociacion de Empleados, Etc. v. Rodriguez Morales, 538 F.2d 915 (1st Cir. 1976); Ali v. A & G Company, 542 F.2d 595 (2n......
-
713 F.2d 568 (10th Cir. 1983), 82-1040, United States v. Berney
...there is an abuse of that discretion. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Petty v. Manpower, Inc., 591 F.2d 615 (10th Cir.1979); Stanley v. Continental Oil Company, 536 F.2d 914 (10th Cir.1976); Davis v. Operation Amigo, Inc., 378 F.2d 101 (10th Cir.1......
-
937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1991), 90-3246, DeBardeleben v. Quinlan
...court "was not so severe a burden as to justify dismissal." Hancock, 857 F.2d at 1396; see also Petty v. Manpower, Inc., 591 F.2d 615 (10th Cir.1979) (dismissing without prejudice when pro se Page 505 failed on two separate occasions to appear for court hearings). Any inconvenienc......
-
592 F.2d 1136 (10th Cir. 1979), 77-1933, Bragg v. Reed
...because of limitations problems or otherwise, the action is treated as final and the order is appealable. Petty v. Manpower, Inc., 591 F.2d 615 (10th Cir. 1979); Coffey v. Whirlpool Corp., 591 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1979). This case certainly meets that criterion. The ruling was that the perio......