Econ. Lab., Inc., 537 F.2d 210, 212 (5th Cir.1976); see also Flaksa v. Little Marine Const. Co., 389 F.2d 885, 887 (5th Cir.1968) (“[Djismissal of an action with prejudice and entry of judgment by default are drastic remedies which should be used only in extreme situations, as the court has a wide range of lesser sanctions.”); Durgin v. Graham, 372 F.2d 130, 131 (5th Cir.1967) (“The sanction of dismissal is the most severe sanction that a court may apply, and its use must be tempered by a careful exercise of judicial discretion.”). In rare cases, we have allowed a district court to dismiss a claim with prejudice based on a litigant’s egregious and continued refusal to abide by the court’s deadlines. See Callip v. Harris Cnty. Child Welfare Dep’t., 757 F.2d 1513, 1519-22 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Delta Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount
holding that failure to meet nine courtimposed deadlines meets the high standard warranting dismissal with prejudice holding that absent extraordinary circumstances a failure to comply with the statute requires a dismissal with prejudice holding that the plaintiffs failure to meet any one of the elements requires dismissal of claim holding that proper remedy for failure to exhaust is dismissal of the claim without prejudice holding that plaintiffs failure to respond to argument warranted dismissal with prejudice