Jodee Garrett, Sr. v. JAMES WALKER, Acting Warden;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JODEE GARRETT, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES WALKER, Acting Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17298
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01904-JAM-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jodee Garrett, Sr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to safety, for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court
orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17298
discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir. 2002), and we
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Garrett’s action
for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders, because Garrett did
not oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment, despite being given clear
warnings by the district court and two extensions of time to do so. See id. at 642-
43 (discussing factors that courts must consider in determining whether to dismiss
for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b)).
Garrett’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --