
    Gloria M. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-17814.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    Gloria M. Walker, Fresno, CA, pro se.
    Shea Lita Bond, Special Assistant U.S., SSA-Social Security Administration, San Francisco, CA, Benjamin Eli Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, 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

Gloria M. Walker appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits for failure to comply with court orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for failure to comply with court orders, including an order to show cause issued by the magistrate judge as to why Walker’s case should not be recommended for dismissal for failure to file an opening brief. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors relevant to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992) (explaining that, although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is a “definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

In light of our conclusion, we do not consider Walker’s contentions concerning the merits of her case.

Contrary to Walker’s contention, her consent to proceed before the magistrate judge was not required because the magistrate judge did not enter dispositive orders, and the district court judge conducted de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Estate of Conners by Meredith v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir.1993) (discussing scope of magistrate judge’s authority under § 636(b)(1)(B)).

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