Trice v. Clark County School District

MEMORANDUM

Geraldine Trice appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, Title VII, and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 986 (9th Cir.1999), and for failure to comply with Rule 4(m)’s service requirements, Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001). We review de novo dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) and on statute of limitations grounds. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the claims against defendant Mark Reed under Rule 41(b) and Nevada Local Rule 7-2(d), because Trice failed to file an opposition to Reed’s motion to dismiss after the district court granted her an extension of time to do so and warned that noncompliance would result in dismissal. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th…