Case Name: Richard E. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-29
Citations: 577 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 12-55892
Parties: Richard E. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 577
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Richard E. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-55892.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 29, 2014.
Richard E. Lee, Inglewood, CA, pro se.
Gregory Mark Bergman, Esquire, Mitchell C. Frederick, Michele M. Goldsmith, Bergman Dacey Goldsmith, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, 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
Richard E. Lee appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Lee's action -with prejudice for failure to prosecute in light of Lee's failure to file pretrial documents and appear at the pretrial conference, even after the court previously granted Lee three continuances and warned him that his action would be dismissed with prejudice if he was not ready to go to trial. See id. at 1384-85 (discussing factors to guide the court's decision whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute).
Because we affirm the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not consider Lee's challenges to the district court's interlocutory orders. See id. at 1386 ("[Ijnterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute[.]").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.