
    Pierre GENEVIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eduardo AGUIRRE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-56730.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 30, 2010.
    Pierre Genevier, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Jung D. Shin, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil & Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, Robert I. Lester, Esq., Kenneth A. Maranga, Esq., Maranga & Morgenstern, Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pierre Genevier appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action alleging that the defendants wrongfully denied him various benefits that he was entitled to as a refugee, and other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after Genevier repeatedly failed to file an amended complaint that complied with the district court’s previous orders and ignored numerous warnings that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 1260-61 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order).

Genevier’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Genevier’s motion to take judicial notice is denied as moot.

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