Case Name: Laurie Marie LASKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-08
Citations: 357 F. App'x 842
Docket Number: No. 08-17201
Parties: Laurie Marie LASKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 842–842

Head Matter:
Laurie Marie LASKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-17201.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009
Filed Dec. 8, 2009.
Laurie Marie Laskey, Jacksonville, NC, pro se.
Leslie Neeland Harvey, Heller Ehrman LLP, San Francisco, CA, Warren J. Rhe-aume, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Laurie Marie Laskey appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging, inter alia, that Microsoft Corporation was negligent by releasing Windows 95. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal for failure to comply with an order of the court. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after Las-key repeatedly failed to file a more definite pleading after being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 1260-62 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing after providing the litigant with notice of the complaint's defects and adequate time to amend).
We do not consider Laskey's arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir.2007).
Laskey'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.