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:T508,MEMORANDUM Lawrence Hickman appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C § 1983 action alleging federal and state law 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. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hickman’s action after Hickman failed to comply with court orders and a binding stipulation to arbitrate, despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute). Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Hickman’s action for failure to prosecute, we do not consider his challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See id. at 1386 (“[Ijnterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T535,

MEMORANDUM

Lawrence Hickman appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C § 1983 action alleging federal and state law 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.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hickman’s action after Hickman failed to comply with court orders and a binding stipulation to arbitrate, despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute). Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Hickman’s action for failure to prosecute, we do not consider his challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See id. at 1386 (“[Ijnterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.