NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOEL JENNINGS WARNE, No. 18-15974

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-06773-DMR

v.

MEMORANDUM*

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Donna M. Ryu, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted March 3, 2020***

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Joel Jennings Warne appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing as a discovery sanction his action alleging federal and state law claims.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 590 (2003) (consent to proceed before a magistrate judge may be implied by a party’s conduct during litigation). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Valley Eng’rs

Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1052 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Warne’s action

because Warne failed to appear for his scheduled in-person deposition despite

multiple warnings that his failure to appear would result in dismissal. See id. at

1056-57 (factors to be considered before dismissing under Rule 37(b)).

We reject as without merit Warne’s contentions regarding judicial bias or

misconduct, or the district court’s discovery-related rulings.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias,

921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-15974