
    James W. BRAMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15877.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 20, 2014.
    James W. Brammer, Imperial, CA, pro se.
    Misha Igra, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-OfSce of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner James W. Brammer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brammer’s action after Brammer failed to comply with repeated court orders to file a response or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss or face possible dismissal of his case. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir.2002) (listing factors to be weighed before dismissing an action for failure to prosecute or failure to follow the local rules).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified its judgment to a dismissal without prejudice in response to Brammer’s first Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, citing Brammer’s pro se status and the fact that dismissal without prejudice is a “less drastic” alternative. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth grounds justifying relief).

Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brammer’s second Rule 60(b) motion because Bram-mer did not set forth any basis for reconsideration. See id.

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