Case ID: f-appx_57/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard E. HODGES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership dba Sprint PCS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-55761.
    D.C. No. CV-01-02312-JNK.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2003.
    
    Decided March 13, 2003.
    Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard Hodges appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action against Sprint PCS Spectrum, L.P., alleging that Sprint made misrepresentations in the sale of cellular phones and services. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Dismissing Hodges’ original complaint, the district court gave Hodges notice of the deficiencies and ordered him to amend his complaint to set forth his claims coherently and concisely pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 8. Hodges’ first amended complaint failed to remedy these deficiencies. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hodges’ action with prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (stating that a dismissal for failure to amend a complaint is typically considered a dismissal for failing to comply with a court order).

Hodges’ remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.