Crane v. Darnell

Miller, Judge.

Acting pro se, Eugene Crane appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint on the grounds that (1) it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and (2) Crane failed to respond to discovery. Since the trial court properly dismissed Crane’s complaint on the ground that he failed to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests, we affirm.

Crane filed a complaint against Richard Darnell, Jr., and Jeffrey Cox, setting forth claims of breach of contract, fraud, “unlawful interference with prospective economic advantage,” and intentional infliction of…