David Steven Braun v. Yahoo! Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID STEVEN BRAUN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
YAHOO! INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-16641
D.C. No. 5:17-cv-06294-SVK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan van Keulen, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 19, 2019***
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
David Steven Braun appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his diversity action alleging issues with his Yahoo e-mail account. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16641
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a
court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Braun’s action
because Braun failed to file a second amended complaint, or to explain why he did
not do so, as ordered. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61; see also Link v.
Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing the authority of a court
to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)).
Braun’s contentions regarding his right to appointment of counsel in the
district court and the lack of finality of the district court’s order are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --