Case Name: Raphael RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-31
Citations: 700 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 16-35381
Parties: Raphael RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 700–700

Head Matter:
Raphael RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-35381
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 31, 2017
Raphael Russell, Pro Se
John M. Silk, Esquire, Attorney, Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Raphael Russell appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging claims related to his home insurance policy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal for failure to comply with court orders, Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Russell's action after Russell failed to comply with court orders and meet discovery deadlines, despite being given multiple extensions of time to comply and being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. (discussing the five factors the district court must weigh before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.