Thomas Berkner appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) dismissal with prejudice of his civil action against Ford Motor Company. Having closely scrutinized the district court’s decision to dismiss Berkner’s lawsuit based on his lack of cooperation in the discovery process, culminating in his failure to comply with its order compelling discovery, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. See Schojfstall v.. *614 Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review; district court may dismiss action as sanction for failing to comply with discovery orders if there is order compelling discovery, it is willfully violated, and there is prejudice to other party). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to appellee. See Comiskey v. JFTJ Corp., 989 F.2d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 1993) (Rule 37 authorizes award encompassing all expenses, whenever incurred, that would not have been sustained had party conducted itself properly). To the extent Berkner is requesting an in camera hearing, we deny his request.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.