Case Name: Vincent U. SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. CARRASCO; M. Dailo, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-19
Citations: 688 F. App'x 436
Docket Number: No. 16-15436
Parties: Vincent U. SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. CARRASCO; M. Dailo, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 436–437

Head Matter:
Vincent U. SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. CARRASCO; M. Dailo, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15436
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 19, 2017
Vincent U. Solomon, Pro Se
Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
California state prisoner Vincent U. Solomon appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to comply with court orders his 42 U.S. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Solomon's action after Solomon failed to comply with court orders or meet deadlines, despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (setting forth the factors to consider before dismissing for failure to comply with a court order).
We reject as unsupported by the record Solomon's contention that the district court judge was biased.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.