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:T43e,MEMORANDUM Tina Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment discrimination action for failure to comply with the district court’s order requiring her to submit to a deposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 883 F.2d 128, 180 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after weighing the pertinent factors. See id. (addressing factors to consider in determining whether a district court abused its discretion by dismissing an action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) or 41(b)); see also Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1455 (9th Cir.1994) (“[A]n express warning regarding the possibility of dismissal is [not] a prerequisite to a Rule 41(b) dismissal when dismissal follows a noticed motion under Rule 41(b).”). Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T470,

MEMORANDUM

Tina Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment discrimination action for failure to comply with the district court’s order requiring her to submit to a deposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 883 F.2d 128, 180 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after weighing the pertinent factors. See id. (addressing factors to consider in determining whether a district court abused its discretion by dismissing an action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) or 41(b)); see also Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1455 (9th Cir.1994) (“[A]n express warning regarding the possibility of dismissal is [not] a prerequisite to a Rule 41(b) dismissal when dismissal follows a noticed motion under Rule 41(b).”).

Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

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