Sort of. A few things went on here. One was the special prosecutor declined to prosecute for obstruction because he couldn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.I believe the entire dismissal was based on the fact that prosecutors couldn't prove that those who destroyed the tapes knew of a signed court order prior to doing so, but I could be wrong...?
The second is that the plaintiffs (ACLU, etc.) petitioned for civil contempt for violation of the court orders and the court wouldn't grant any remedies beyond awarding the plaintiffs their attorney's fees because the remedies for civil contempt are limited.
Civil contempt is not to punish bad acts but rather to force compliance with the court's orders. The classic example is locking up the journalist who refuses to reveal his sources. The journalist will be set free at the moment he decides to comply. The court's reasoning here was that the tapes were already destroyed and the CIA did everything they were ordered to do subsequently in terms of producing all documents related to the tapes and their destruction. There was nothing further to comply with, and hence no remedy under the theory of civil contempt.
There is also something called criminal contempt and this does have the purpose of punishing the bad act of disobeying the order. The trouble is that criminal contempt requires proof that the act was done willfully and with knowledge of the order. They were not prosecuted for criminal contempt for the same reason they weren't prosecuted for obstruction: because it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Incidentally, internal e-mails of the CIA disclose that they destroyed the tapes to avoid bad publicity, and also revealed that the tapes depicted 88 incidents of water boarding, some going beyond the version of it that the Bush DoJ claimed was legal. It's pretty clear that they destroyed the tapes to avoid exposure of illegal conduct.