Case Name: Robert HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 671 F. App'x 450
Docket Number: No. 15-55298
Parties: Robert HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 450–451

Head Matter:
Robert HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-55298
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 16, 2016
Filed November 23, 2016
Alvaro Cuellar, Pro Se, Blythe, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Shira S. Markovich, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, 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
Robert Henderson appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action alleging fraud and theft in connection with his veteran's benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Henderson's action because Henderson failed to comply with court-ordered discovery even after the district court warned him that noncompliance could result in dismissal, and granted him three months to show good cause for his noncompliance. See id. (setting forth the five factors the district court must consider before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a court order).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.