Carl Nase; Craig Haskell; Ron Winter, Plaintiffs-appellants,andwalter H. "duke" Newsome, Plaintiff, v. Mark P. O'donnell; O'donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan, Anoregon Law Partnership; Timothy v. Ramis;stephen F. Crew; Kenneth M. Elliott;charles E. Corrigan,defendants-appellees, 103 F.3d 139 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^* 

We have studied the meticulous opinion by Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas. We have reviewed the entire record de novo, to determine whether there were genuine issues of fact, and to determine whether defendants were, as the magistrate judge concluded, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. T.W. Elec. Service v. Pacific Elec. Contractors, 809 F.2d 626, 629 (9th Cir. 1986). We have reviewed the district court's dismissal of Newsome's complaint, based on his refusal to submit to deposition, for abuse of discretion. Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994); Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652 (9th Cir. 1990).

We AFFIRM for the reasons well stated by the magistrate judge.