Case Name: Royal Porter McHENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-21
Citations: 377 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 08-55447
Parties: Royal Porter McHENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
Royal Porter McHENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-55447.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 21, 2010.
Royal Porter McHenry, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
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
Royal Porter McHenry, an inmate in Los Angeles County Jail, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing, without prejudice, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action because McHenry failed to comply with the district court's order requiring him to file an amended complaint within a specified time period. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors a court must weigh to determine whether to dismiss a claim for failure to comply with a court order). Further, McHenry asked the district court to dismiss this action. To the extent McHenry sought to stand on the original complaint, we agree with the magistrate judge's order of December 4, 2007, that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to put defendants on notice of a claim against them.
We do not consider issues not properly raised before the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
McHenry's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.