Marks v. Tompkins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion by 1 Graham also received an extension of time in which to object to the Court’s Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) in one of her other pending IFP actions. See Graham v. Terry Fam. Funeral Home (Graham III
• “The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing [the self-represented plaintiff’s] actions for failure to comply with court orders and local rules after warning [him] that non-compliance could result in the dismissal of his action.”
• “The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing [the self-represented plaintiff’s] actions for failure to comply with court orders and local rules after warning [him] that non-compliance could result in the dismissal of his action.”
• “The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing [the self- represented plaintiff’s] actions for failure to comply with court orders and local rules after warning [him] that non-compliance could result in the dismissal of his action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).