
    David T. LASHGARI and Marje H. Lashgari, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. William J. BRATTON, LAPD, Chief; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and John Erdert; et al., Defendants.
    No. 09-56289.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 7, 2011.
    David T. Lashgari, Marietta, GA, pro se.
    Marje H. Lashgari, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Blithe Smith Bock, Susan Kawala, Esquire, Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Sandra Isabel Barrientos, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Alexis Amber, Peter Osinoff, Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O’Keefe & Nichols, Lisa Darling-Alderton, Esquire, Woolls & Peer, Los Angeles, CA, Clayton C. Averbuck, Esquire, Jennifer Gysler, Monroy, Averbuck and Gysler, Westlake Village, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David T. Lashgari and Marje H. Lashgari appeal pro se from the district court’s orders dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion. United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir.2009) (reconsideration); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir.2002) (failure to prosecute). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for failure to prosecute after it warned the Lashgaris that noncompliance with its order to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal and it granted an extension of time to comply, and the Lashgaris failed to amend their complaint for approximately six months after the deadline for doing so. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (discussing factors that district courts must consider before dismissing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b))

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for reconsideration because the Lashgaris failed to provide a sufficient basis for reconsideration. See United Nat’l Ins. Co., 555 F.3d at 780 (listing bases for reconsideration).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not consider the Lashgaris’ challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996).

The Lashgaris’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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