FINCH v. MOUNTAIN PARK HEALTH CENTER (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Samantha Finch appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging claims under Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with court orders. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Finch's action because Finch failed to comply with the district court's orders to file a fourth amended complaint after the district court warned her twice that failure to comply would result in dismissal of her action. See id. at 1226-29 (discussing the five factors the district court must weigh before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (although preferred, the district court is not required to make explicit findings; this court may review the record independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion).

Because we affirm the district court's dismissal of Finch's action for failure to comply with court orders, we do not consider Finch's 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) ).

We reject as unsupported by the record and without merit Finch's contentions that the district court was biased or engaged in misconduct.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

The parties’ requests for sanctions, set forth in the answering and reply briefs, are denied.

Defendants’ request for attorney's fees and costs, set forth in the answering brief, is denied without prejudice to re-filing in compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 and Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.

AFFIRMED.