Summary
concluding that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when at least three of the Pagtalunan factors weighed "strongly" in support of dismissal
Summary of this case from Howell v. GermanyOpinion
No. 15-17068
12-22-2016
HENRY LAGMAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SHELLEY NOBRIGA, Respondent-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00166-DKW-RLP MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Henry Lagmay, a Hawaii state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to comply with court orders his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.
Lagmay did not present any arguments in his opening brief suggesting that the district court abused its discretion. Thus, Lagmay abandoned the appeal of the district court's judgments dismissing his action and denying his motion for reconsideration. See Collins v. City of San Diego, 841 F.2d 337, 339 (9th Cir. 1988) ("It is well established in this Circuit that claims which are not addressed in the appellant's brief are deemed abandoned.").
Lagmay's pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.