22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T51c,MEMORANDUM Pete and Patricia Reynosa appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their wrongful foreclosure action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with local rules, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action because the Reynosas failed to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-9 (requiring the filing of an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion to dismiss); C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (providing that the failure to file any required document may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion); Ghazali 46 F.3d at 53-54 (listing the factors to be weighed before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules, affirming dismissal for failure to file opposition to motion to dismiss, and noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure). Because we affirm the dismissal for failure' to comply with the local rules, we do not address the Reynosas’ contentions concerning the merits of their claims. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T54e,

MEMORANDUM

Pete and Patricia Reynosa appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their wrongful foreclosure action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with local rules, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action because the Reynosas failed to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-9 (requiring the filing of an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion to dismiss); C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (providing that the failure to file any required document may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion); Ghazali 46 F.3d at 53-54 (listing the factors to be weighed before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules, affirming dismissal for failure to file opposition to motion to dismiss, and noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure).

Because we affirm the dismissal for failure' to comply with the local rules, we do not address the Reynosas’ contentions concerning the merits of their claims.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.