Robert Henderson v. Jp Morgan Chase & Company;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-55298
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-05960-DDP-
PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Robert Henderson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his action alleging fraud and theft in connection with his veteran’s benefits. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
* 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).
FILED
NOV 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-55298
district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order.
Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.3d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Henderson’s
action because Henderson failed to comply with court-ordered discovery even after
the district court warned him that noncompliance could result in dismissal, and
granted him three months to show good cause for his noncompliance. See id.
(setting forth the five factors the district court must consider before dismissing an
action for failure to comply with a court order).
We do not consider 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.

-- 2 of 2 --