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:T443,MEMORANDUM Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his action alleging em ployment related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , We review for an abuse of discretion. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Russell’s action after Russell repeatedly failed to submit to a deposition despite being warned by the court that non-compliance would result in dismissal. See id. (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute); see also Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (“A reviewing court will give deference to the district court to decide what is unreasonable because it is in the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable” (citations omitted)). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T470,

MEMORANDUM

Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his action alleging em ployment related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , We review for an abuse of discretion. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Russell’s action after Russell repeatedly failed to submit to a deposition despite being warned by the court that non-compliance would result in dismissal. See id. (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute); see also Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (“A reviewing court will give deference to the district court to decide what is unreasonable because it is in the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable” (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

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