Tina Davis v. Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care System;

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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TINA DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTHERN ARIZONA VETERANS
AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16662
D.C. No. 4:01-cv-00039-JMR
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John M. Roll, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Tina Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her
FILED
JAN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-16662 2
employment discrimination action for failure to comply with the district court’s
order requiring her to submit to a deposition. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after
weighing the pertinent factors. See id. (addressing factors to consider in
determining whether a district court abused its discretion by dismissing an action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) or 41(b)); see also Eisen v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31
F.3d 1447, 1455 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[A]n express warning regarding the possibility
of dismissal is [not] a prerequisite to a Rule 41(b) dismissal when dismissal
follows a noticed motion under Rule 41(b).”).
Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --