Court Opinion

ID: 9841504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 18:00:38.673214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:29.339130
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT R. SNYDER,                               No.    23-55037

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00432-MMA-
                                                WVG
 v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary, CDCR;              MEMORANDUM*
RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                   Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Robert R. Snyder appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth

Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Pagtalunan v.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Snyder’s action

for failure to prosecute where Snyder failed to file a timely amended complaint.

See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-643 (discussing factors a court should consider

before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a court order).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                    23-55037