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:T4e6,MEMORANDUM Michael Lenoir Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations by various prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Smith’s action without prejudice for failure to prosecute because Smith failed to file an amended pretrial statement by the deadline set by the district court. See id. (listing factors to guide the court’s decision whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b)). Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not consider Smith’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996) (after dismissal for failure to prosecute, interlocutory orders are not appeal- able regardless of whether failure to prosecute was purposeful). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T518,

MEMORANDUM

Michael Lenoir Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations by various prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Smith’s action without prejudice for failure to prosecute because Smith failed to file an amended pretrial statement by the deadline set by the district court. See id. (listing factors to guide the court’s decision whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b)).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not consider Smith’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996) (after dismissal for failure to prosecute, interlocutory orders are not appeal- able regardless of whether failure to prosecute was purposeful).

AFFIRMED.

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