
    James WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK, Officer, Metropolitan Police; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-17243
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 5, 2017
    James Williams, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Nicholas Crosby, Marquis & Aurbach, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendantr-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have' -jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Williams’s action because Williams failed to comply with court orders, including filing a pre-trial order, despite being ordered twice to do so. See id. at 130-32 (discussing the five factors the district court must weigh before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Williams’s action for failure to comply with court orders, we do not consider Williams’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, geperally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 986 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     