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:T4a3,MEMORANDUM Carmen Suarez-Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging state law foreclosure claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm. Suarez-Smith fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal of her action for failure to prosecute, and has therefore waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party' in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). Because Suarez-Smith’s action was dismissed for failure to prosecute, we do not consider her challenges to the district court’s interlocutory order dismissing her complaint with leave to amend. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 (if the dismissal is for failure to prosecute, interlocutory orders are not appealable regardless of whether the failure to prosecute was purposeful or the result of negligence or mistake). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4d0,

MEMORANDUM

Carmen Suarez-Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging state law foreclosure claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

Suarez-Smith fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal of her action for failure to prosecute, and has therefore waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party' in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). Because Suarez-Smith’s action was dismissed for failure to prosecute, we do not consider her challenges to the district court’s interlocutory order dismissing her complaint with leave to amend. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 (if the dismissal is for failure to prosecute, interlocutory orders are not appealable regardless of whether the failure to prosecute was purposeful or the result of negligence or mistake).

AFFIRMED.

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