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:T43a,MEMORANDUM Tony Asberry, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and denial of his right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Asberry’s action after Asberry failed to file an amended com plaint. See id. at 1260-61 (setting forth factors to consider before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a court order). For the first time on appeal, As-berry contends that he did not receive the district court’s August 12, 2014 order granting him leave to amend his access-to-courts claim. Nevertheless, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Asberry’s action because amendment would be futile. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3,24:T467,

MEMORANDUM

Tony Asberry, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and denial of his right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Asberry’s action after Asberry failed to file an amended com plaint. See id. at 1260-61 (setting forth factors to consider before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a court order). For the first time on appeal, As-berry contends that he did not receive the district court’s August 12, 2014 order granting him leave to amend his access-to-courts claim. Nevertheless, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Asberry’s action because amendment would be futile.

AFFIRMED.

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