Unpublished Disposition, 911 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1989)
Annotate this CaseGerard TRENT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Daniel MCCARTHY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-16061.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 3, 1990.* Decided Aug. 7, 1990.
MEMORANDUM*
Before WALLACE, CANBY and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Gerard Trent, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing sua sponte his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to timely file a pretrial statement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review for an abuse of discretion. See Hernandez v. Whiting, 881 F.2d 768, 770 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.
At the threshhold, appellees contend that by failing to object to the magistrate's proposed findings, Trent has waived his right to object to those findings on appeal. Appellees are correct that Trent's failure to object to the magistrate's proposed findings of fact precludes him from contesting those findings on appeal. See Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 863 F.2d 633, 635 (9th Cir. 1988). However, Trent is not precluded from raising points of error as to the district court's conclusions of law. See Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989). We therefore consider the merits of this appeal.
"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court." Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Here, Trent had been ordered to file a pretrial statement pursuant to Local Rule 281 by May 23, 1989, but failed to do so. The magistrate recommended that his action be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.1 Trent was notified that he had thirty days to object to the magistrate's recommendation.
Trent thus had sufficient warning that failure to file his pretrial statement pursuant to Local Rule 281 would result in dismissal of his action. Despite this warning, Trent did not file his pretrial statement; nor did he file any objections to the magistrate's recommendation. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his action. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132 (9th Cir. 1987) (observing that a warning that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can satisfy the requirement to consider less drastic alternatives to dismissal), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 59 (1988).2
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Trent's request for oral argument is denied
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
In pertinent part, Local Rule 110 provides:
Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules, with the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, or with any order of the Court may be ground for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any action, entry of default, finding of contempt, imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys' fees and costs, and other lesser sanctions.
Local Rule 110.
On May 14, 1990, Trent filed a motion for appointment of counsel with this court. Because we affirm the district court's judgment, we deny the motion
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
