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:T486,MEMORANDUM Mohamed Ahmed appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 986 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm. Because the district court properly dismissed Ahmed’s federal claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Ahmed failed to amend the complaint after obtaining leave to do so, dismissal of the complaint with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir.1992) (discussing factors to determine whether dismissal for failure to amend was an abuse of discretion); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1990). To the extent Ahmed raises any state law claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3). Finally, we grant Appellees’ motion to strike. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4b8,

MEMORANDUM

Mohamed Ahmed appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 986 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Because the district court properly dismissed Ahmed’s federal claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Ahmed failed to amend the complaint after obtaining leave to do so, dismissal of the complaint with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir.1992) (discussing factors to determine whether dismissal for failure to amend was an abuse of discretion); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1990). To the extent Ahmed raises any state law claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3).

Finally, we grant Appellees’ motion to strike.

AFFIRMED.

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