Terence Dickinson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC , 466 F. App'x 567 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 12 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TERENCE K. DICKINSON,                            No. 10-16169
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00023-RCJ-
    GWF
    v.
    OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC;                       MEMORANDUM *
    HSBC BANK USA,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Robert Clive Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 19, 2011 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    Terence K. Dickinson, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
    judgment in his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction
    under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    dismissal for failure to comply with local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 
    46 F.3d 52
    , 53
    (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Dickinson’s
    action with prejudice where Dickinson did not file an opposition to defendants’
    motion to dismiss, did not appear at the hearing on that motion or notify the district
    court of his absence, and subsequently gave the district court misleading answers
    concerning various aspects of his action. See 
    id. at 53-54
    (listing factors to be
    considered before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a local rule, and
    explaining that the court reviews the record independently when the district court
    does not expressly consider these factors); D. Nev. R. 7-2(b), (d) (failure to oppose
    a motion constitutes consent to the granting of that motion).
    Dickinson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    10-16169
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-16169

Citation Numbers: 466 F. App'x 567

Judges: Goodwin, McKEOWN, Wallace

Filed Date: 1/12/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023