Case Name: Joe CABELLO, an individual person, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-13
Citations: 387 F. App'x 709
Docket Number: No. 09-16217
Parties: Joe CABELLO, an individual person, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 709–710

Head Matter:
Joe CABELLO, an individual person, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-16217.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 13, 2010.
Joe Cabello, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Timothy J. Watson, Gust Rosenfeld, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joe Cabello appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file an amended complaint after the district court dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
The district court gave Cabello notice of the insufficiencies of his complaint, dismissed it with leave to amend, and provided Cabello with ample opportunity to submit an amended complaint, but Cabello failed to do so. We affirm the district court's dismissal of the action. See id. at 992 (affirming dismissal of action following plaintiffs failure to amend complaint after receiving leave to do so, where the interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court's management of its docket, and avoiding prejudice to defendants favored dismissal).
Cabello'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.