Case Name: George SPITTAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roxanne FINDLAY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-26
Citations: 271 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 07-15129
Parties: George SPITTAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roxanne FINDLAY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 689–690

Head Matter:
George SPITTAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roxanne FINDLAY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-15129.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 26, 2008.
George Spittal, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
Justin Neal Telford, Esq., Thomas L. Riordan, Porter Scott Weiberg & Dele-hant, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
George Spittal appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir.1979), and we affirm.
Construing Spittal's brief liberally to constitute a challenge to the district court's grounds for dismissal, we neverthe less conclude that the district court did not. abuse its discretion by dismissing Spittal's action because he failed to oppose the motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.