Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Plaintiff brought § 1983 action against state and other defendants, alleging violations of his civil rights stemming from earlier criminal prosecution and alleged property seizures. The United States District Court for the District of Montana, Jack D. Shanstrom, J., dismissed action for failure to comply with court order. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held that dismissal was not abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Jack D. Shanstrom, District Judge, Presiding.
Before KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Alvin Birkholz appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his civil rights stemming from an earlier criminal prosecution and from alleged seizures
Page 798.
of property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion dismissals for failure to comply with a court order, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.
Birkholz failed to amend his complaint to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), as directed by the magistrate judge's order of November 27, 2000. The magistrate judge warned Birkholz that failure to comply could lead to dismissal, and, prior to dismissing, the district court properly considered all relevant factors. See id. at 1260-61.
Because the magistrate judge did not issue a final, dispositive order, Birkholz's contention that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction is meritless. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
AFFIRMED.