Case Name: Jonathan McALLISTER, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRESTON, Licensed Practitioner, Nurse at ADC/ASPC Eyman-Meadows Unit, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-05
Citations: 536 F. App'x 751
Docket Number: No. 12-16672
Parties: Jonathan McALLISTER, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRESTON, Licensed Practitioner, Nurse at ADC/ASPC Eyman-Meadows Unit, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 751–751

Head Matter:
Jonathan McALLISTER, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRESTON, Licensed Practitioner, Nurse at ADC/ASPC Eyman-Meadows Unit, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-16672.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed Aug. 5, 2013.
Jonathan McAllister, Sr., Kingman, AZ, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, 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.
Jonathan McAllister, Sr., an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42 U.S.C. § 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). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing McAllister's action without prejudice after McAllister failed to comply with the district court's March 12, 2012 order to show cause in a timely manner. See id., 291 F.3d at 642-43 (discussing factors for dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b) and affirming dismissal where three out of five factors supported it).
Because we affirm the district court's dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not consider McAllister's challenges to the district court's interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.