Case Name: Mike CHAMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nicholas GUTIERREZ, Chief Admin & Support, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-13
Citations: 453 F. App'x 759
Docket Number: No. 10-55884
Parties: Mike CHAMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nicholas GUTIERREZ, Chief Admin & Support, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 759–760

Head Matter:
Mike CHAMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nicholas GUTIERREZ, Chief Admin & Support, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-55884.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 13, 2011.
Mike Chambers, Pasadena, CA, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, 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
Mike Chambers appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action alleging that his former supervisor abused his authority in connection with Chamber's termination and committed fraud in violation of federal law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Chambers's action because Chambers failed to file a response to an order to show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute after the court instructed him on how to manually file his response and gave him an extension of time to do so. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors for dismissing under Rule 41(b) and affirming dismissal where three out of five factors supported it).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.