Case Name: Albert O'ROURKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-03
Citations: 489 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 11-55118
Parties: Albert O’ROURKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 489
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
Albert O’ROURKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-55118.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Jan. 3, 2013.
Albert O’Rourke, La Jolla, CA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Albert O'Rourke appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his action alleging federal and state law claims related to eviction and unlawful detainer proceedings against O'Rourke. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing O'Rourke's action because O'Rourke failed to serve his amended complaint, to respond to the district court's notice regarding potential dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute, and to provide a credible explanation for his inaction and delay. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1384 (discussing factors to be considered in dismissing an action for failure to prosecute).
O'Rourke's contentions regarding defendants' alleged conspiracy to try to obtain nuclear weapons studies and related information allegedly stored in the O'Rourke residence are not supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.