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:T43b,MEMORANDUM Anthony Richardo Turner, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging denial of access to his medical records and constitutional violations re garding his medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir.1984). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action without prejudice because Turner failed to file an amended complaint after being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 496-97 (listing factors to consider before dismissing an action for lack of prosecution and explaining that “[a] relatively brief period of delay is sufficient to justify” a dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute). Turner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T46d,

MEMORANDUM

Anthony Richardo Turner, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging denial of access to his medical records and constitutional violations re garding his medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir.1984). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action without prejudice because Turner failed to file an amended complaint after being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 496-97 (listing factors to consider before dismissing an action for lack of prosecution and explaining that “[a] relatively brief period of delay is sufficient to justify” a dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute).

Turner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

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