Case Name: Noel T. BENOIST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAST DRAW PRODUCTIONS INC.; Tristar Productions Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-21
Citations: 3 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 99-16025; D.C. No. CV-97-166-RCC
Parties: Noel T. BENOIST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAST DRAW PRODUCTIONS INC.; Tristar Productions Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
Noel T. BENOIST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAST DRAW PRODUCTIONS INC.; Tristar Productions Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-16025.
D.C. No. CV-97-166-RCC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.
Decided Feb. 21, 2001.
Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Benoist's request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Noel T. Benoist appeals pro se the order of the district court dismissing his action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to comply -with a prior order to proceed to contractual arbitration. Because the district court clearly intended its May 3, 1999 order to operate as a final adjudication, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Nevada v. Burford, 918 F.2d 854, 855 (9th Cir.1990). We review for abuse of discretion, see Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996), and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its May 3,1999 order.
AFFIRMED.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.