McKENNA v. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, 361 Fed.Appx. 902 (9th Cir. 2010)

Edward Phillip McKENNA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-56337.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted December 15, 2009.[*]
Filed January 11, 2010.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

[*] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Edward Phillip McKenna, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

Teresa M. Mcgowan, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, San Bernardino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 5:03-cv-01111-GW-CW.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

[**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Edward Phillip McKenna, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for 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 by dismissing the action, without prejudice, after weighing the pertinent factors and providing McKenna numerous opportunities to amend his complaint and warning that failure to do so properly would result in dismissal. See id. at 1260-63 (addressing factors to consider in determining whether a district court abused its discretion by dismissing a pro se action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)).

McKenna’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.