From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Basile v. Sw. Airlines Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 19, 2019
No. 18-16332 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2019)

Opinion

No. 18-16332

03-19-2019

CONSTANTINO BASILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01883-RFB-VCF MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Constantino Basile appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order to submit to a medical examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 his diversity action alleging defamation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Basile's action after Basile failed to comply with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order and stating that a district court's dismissal should not be disturbed absent "a definite and firm conviction" that it "committed a clear error of judgment" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Because we affirm the district court's dismissal of Basile's action for failure to comply with a court order, we do not consider his challenges to the district court's interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) ("[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Basile's motion to transmit exhibits (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Basile v. Sw. Airlines Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 19, 2019
No. 18-16332 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2019)
Case details for

Basile v. Sw. Airlines Co.

Case Details

Full title:CONSTANTINO BASILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 19, 2019

Citations

No. 18-16332 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2019)

Citing Cases

Basile v. Sony Pictures Entm't

4. Basile v. Warner Bros. Entm't Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05243-DMG-MRW, 2016 WL 5867432, ECF No. 1 at 1-9…

Basile v. L.A. Film Sch., LLC

However, Plaintiff appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's…