NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAPHEAL G. RUSSELL, No. 14-36080
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01743-MJP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TODD PACIFIC/VIGOR INDUSTRIES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for failure to prosecute his action alleging employment related claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Russell’s action
after Russell repeatedly failed to submit to a deposition despite being warned by
the court that non-compliance would result in dismissal. See id. (discussing factors
to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute); see also
Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (“A
reviewing court will give deference to the district court to decide what is
unreasonable because it is in the best position to determine what period of delay
can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable” (citations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-36080