FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES T. DAVIS, No. 09-16655
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01383-FCD-
EFB
v.
D. CALVIN, C/O; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 22, 2010 **
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Charles T.
Davis’s (“Davis”) action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) after
warning Davis to comply with its order to appear at his deposition and weighing
the pertinent factors. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2002) (discussing factors that courts must consider in determining whether to
dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not
consider Davis’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See
Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-16655