Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0902-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward Phillip MCKENNA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 08-56337.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
    Edward Phillip McKenna, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Teresa M. Mcgowan, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, San Bernardino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edward Phillip McKenna, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action, without prejudice, after weighing the pertinent factors and providing McKenna numerous opportunities to amend his complaint and warning that failure to do so properly would result in dismissal. See id. at 1260-63 (addressing factors to consider in determining whether a district court abused its discretion by dismissing a pro se action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)).

McKenna’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.