Case ID: f-appx_465/html/0673-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael B. MYERS; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. MAILBOX IT STORES OF AMERICA, INC.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-56399.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 9, 2012.
    Michael B. Myers, Victorville, CA, pro se.
    Jeanette A. Myers, Victorville, CA, pro se.
    Sanjeev Subherwal, Victorville, CA, pro se.
    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

Michael B. Myers, Jeannette A. Myers, and Sanjeev Subherwal appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their diversity action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute. Oliva v. Sulli van, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute after giving appellants warnings that failure to appropriately respond to its orders to show cause could lead to dismissal. See id.; Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986) (listing factors to guide the court’s decision whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute).

Appellants’ 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.