FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 30 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RON JOHNSON, No. 11-16622
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02505-EDL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
BRITISH PETROLEUM OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Elizabeth D. Laporte, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ron Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s orders dismissing his
anti-trust action against British Petroleum of America for failure to prosecute and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
Johnson consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
denying his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Johnson’s action
for failure to prosecute after Johnson failed to act on the district court’s orders to
take steps to perfect service on the defendant. See id. at 496-97 (discussing factors
to guide the district court’s decision whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we
do not consider Johnson’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders.
See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (after dismissal for
failure to prosecute, interlocutory orders are not appealable regardless of whether
the failure to prosecute was purposeful).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion
for reconsideration because Johnson failed to show grounds warranting
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds
for reconsideration).
Johnson’s remaining contentions, including those concerning whether he
was entitled to de novo review by a district judge after he consented to proceed
2 11-16622
before the magistrate judge, are unpersuasive. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)
(district court may vacate reference to magistrate judge only upon showing of good
cause or extraordinary circumstance).
Johnson’s “Letter of Inquiry,” received on June 8, 2012, is ordered filed and,
to the extent that it requests relief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-16622