Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0876-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tina DAVIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOUTHERN ARIZONA VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 08-16662.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
    Tina Davis, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Joseph Cole Hernandez, USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tina Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment discrimination action for failure to comply with the district court’s order requiring her to submit to a deposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 883 F.2d 128, 180 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after weighing the pertinent factors. See id. (addressing factors to consider in determining whether a district court abused its discretion by dismissing an action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) or 41(b)); see also Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1455 (9th Cir.1994) (“[A]n express warning regarding the possibility of dismissal is [not] a prerequisite to a Rule 41(b) dismissal when dismissal follows a noticed motion under Rule 41(b).”).

Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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