Case ID: f-appx_466/html/0567-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Terence K. DICKINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; HSBC Bank USA, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-16169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 12, 2012.
    Terence K. Dickinson, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Jeffrey S. Allison, Esquire, Houser & Allison, Irvine, CA, Stephanie Cooper Herdman, Esquire, The Cooper Castle Law Firm, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Terence K. Dickinson, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Dickinson’s action with prejudice where Dickinson did not file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, did not appear at the hearing on that motion or notify the district court of his absence, and subsequently gave the district court misleading answers concerning various aspects of his action. See id. at 53-54 (listing factors to be considered before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a local rule, and explaining that the court reviews the record independently when the district court does not expressly consider these factors); D. Nev. R. 7-2(b), (d) (failure to oppose a motion constitutes consent to the granting of that motion).

Dickinson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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