Case Name: Edward P. LAZAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-21
Citations: 377 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 08-56713
Parties: Edward P. LAZAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 611–611

Head Matter:
Edward P. LAZAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-56713.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 21, 2010.
Edward P. Lazar, Mt. Pleasant, SC, pro se.
Millicent L. Rolon, Principal Deputy County Counsel, County Counsel, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Edward P. Lazar appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
Because the district court properly concluded that Lazar's complaint failed to meet the pleading standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and Lazar failed to amend the complaint after obtaining leave to do so, dismissal of the complaint with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(l)-(3) (stating pleading requirements); Hearns, 530 F.3d at 1129-31 (discussing factors to determine whether initial dismissal under Rule 8 was proper and whether subsequent dismissal for failure to amend was an abuse of discretion).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.