Case Name: Delmo Figura TORREFRANCA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-07
Citations: 453 F. App'x 704
Docket Number: No. 10-17693
Parties: Delmo Figura TORREFRANCA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 704–705

Head Matter:
Delmo Figura TORREFRANCA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17693.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 7, 2011.
Delmo Figura Torrefranca, Florence, AZ, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Delmo Figura Torrefranca, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations by various prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Torrefranca's action without prejudice for failure to prosecute because Torrefranca failed to serve the two defendants that survived the court's screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423 (listing factors to guide the court's decision whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
Because we affirm the district court's dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not consider Torrefranca's challenges to the district court's interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996) (after dismissal for failure to prosecute, interlocutory orders are not ap-pealable whether or not failure to prosecute was purposeful).
Torrefranca's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.