Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0450-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-55298
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 23, 2016
    Alvaro Cuellar, Pro Se, Blythe, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Shira S. Markovich, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Henderson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging fraud and theft in connection with his veteran’s benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Henderson’s action because Henderson failed to comply with court-ordered discovery even after the district court warned him that noncompliance could result in dismissal, and granted him three months to show good cause for his noncompliance. See id. (setting forth the five factors the district court must consider before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a court order).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.