Opinion
No. 08-16743.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 30, 2009.
Dianne Barker, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Glen Roy Fagan, Timothy R. Newton, Frank Barry Shuster, Constangy, Brooks Smith, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Luis F. Ramirez, Quarles Brady, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Hertz Corp.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00554-MHM.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Dianne Barker appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing her employment discrimination action as a discovery sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action in light of Barker's repeated failure to comply with discovery orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C); Rio Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1022 (discussing five factors court must weigh in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order).
We do not review the district court's order denying reconsideration because Barker did not file an amended notice of appeal from the denial of that order. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).