WILLIAM M. BRYSON, Jr. v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM M. BRYSON, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED
STATES ATTORNEYS,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-15693
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01979-LJO-MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
William M. Bryson, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his Freedom of Information Act action without
prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
MAR 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bryson’s action
after Bryson failed to respond to an order to show cause regarding missing service
documents, despite being warned that failure to comply with the order to show
cause would result in dismissal of his action. See id. at 1260-61 (setting forth
factors to consider before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a court
order).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
15-15693 2

-- 2 of 2 --