Amany Simmonds v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; DOES, 1- 100, inclusive

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMANY SIMMONDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; DOES, 1-
100, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56061
D.C. No. 8:17-cv-00337-DOC-JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Amany Simmonds appeals from the district court’s order dismissing for
failure to prosecute her diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 25 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56061
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Simmonds’s
action because Simmonds failed to file an amended complaint or indicate that she
intended to stand by her complaint. See id. at 1065 (“The failure of the plaintiff
eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum - either by amending the complaint
or by indicating to the court that it will not do so - is properly met with the sanction
of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
1999) (listing factors to be considered in dismissing a case as a sanction for failure
to prosecute).
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.

-- 2 of 2 --