Case Name: Michael Lenoir SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-24
Citations: 481 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 11-17466
Parties: Michael Lenoir SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
Michael Lenoir SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17466.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 24, 2012.
Michael Lenoir Smith, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Jay M. Goldman, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Michael Lenoir Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations by various prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Smith's action without prejudice for failure to prosecute because Smith failed to file an amended pretrial statement by the deadline set by the district court. See id. (listing factors to guide the court's decision whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b)).
Because we affirm the district court's dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not consider Smith's challenges to the district court's interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996) (after dismissal for failure to prosecute, interlocutory orders are not appeal- able regardless of whether failure to prosecute was purposeful).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.