BOIKO v. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Ludmila Boiko appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing her action alleging federal claims arising from the mistreatment of her adult daughter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Boiko's action because Boiko failed to file an amended complaint even after receiving an extension of time. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the five factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); see also Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011) (this court reviews the record independently if the district court does not make explicit findings regarding each of the factors).

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).

AFFIRMED.