Case Name: Rapheal G. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TODD PACIFIC/VIGOR INDUSTRIES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-02
Citations: 679 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 14-36080
Parties: Rapheal G. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TODD PACIFIC/VIGOR INDUSTRIES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 679
Pages: 577–578

Head Matter:
Rapheal G. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TODD PACIFIC/VIGOR INDUSTRIES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-36080
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed March 2, 2017
Rapheal G. Russell, Pro Se
Keelin A. Curran, Esquire, Attorney, Stoel Rives LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his action alleging em ployment related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review for an abuse of discretion. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Russell's action after Russell repeatedly failed to submit to a deposition despite being warned by the court that non-compliance would result in dismissal. See id. (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute); see also Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) ("A reviewing court will give deference to the district court to decide what is unreasonable because it is in the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable" (citations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.