Case Name: Michael Shawn ROCHESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda ROWE, MD; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-07
Citations: 471 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 10-17772
Parties: Michael Shawn ROCHESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda ROWE, MD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
Michael Shawn ROCHESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda ROWE, MD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17772.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 7, 2012.
Michael Shawn Rochester, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
Misha Igra, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Michael Shawn Rochester appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action without prejudice after it warned Rochester that failure to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal, and granted an extension of time to comply with its order. See id. at 496-97 (listing factors to consider before dismissing an action for lack of prosecution and explaining that "[a] relatively brief period of delay is sufficient to justify" a dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute).
We do not consider Rochester's contentions concerning the district court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss. See id. at 497-98 (interlocutory orders are not appealable after dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.