Charles T. Davis v. D. Calvin, C/o;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES T. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. CALVIN, C/O; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16655
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01383-FCD-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
OCT 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16655 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 of 2 --