
    Melvin Keakaku AMINA, husband; Donna Mae Amina, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WMC MORTGAGE CORP.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-15521.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 28, 2014.
    Melvin Keakaku Amina, Husband, Honolulu, HI, pro se.
    Donna Mae Amina, Wife, Honolulu, HI, pro se.
    Patricia Jane McHenry, Esquire, Andrew George Odell, Esquire, Sean Smith, Cades Schutte LLP, David A. Gruebner, Esquire, Jeffrey Hung Kien Sia, Diane W. Wong, Ayabe, Chong, Nishimoto, Sia & Nakamura, Becky Thomas Chestnut, Esquire, David J. Minkin, Esquire, McCorri-ston Miller Mukai Mackinnon LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Melvin Keakaku Amina and Donna Mae Amina appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice the Aminas’ action because the Aminas failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their repeated failure to file necessary pleadings, appear at multiple court hearings, and respond to the court’s orders to show cause despite being warned that their action could be dismissed. See id. at 1384-85 (setting forth factors relevant to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and declining to set aside dismissal with prejudice absent support for plaintiffs argument that his failure to appear at trial was due to a mistake or a misunderstanding).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not consider the Aminas’ various challenges to certain of the district court’s interlocutory orders. See id. at 1386 (after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, interlocutory orders are not appealable regardless of whether the failure to prosecute was purposeful or negligent).

The Aminas’ contentions that they fully briefed the district court when they missed some hearings; that their failure to appear did not prevent a resolution of the action or deprive defendants of the opportunity to cross-examine them since none of the missed hearings were “evidentiary;” that they have a right to remain silent; and that the consequence of missing a hearing should be limited to a waiver of the right to oral argument, are unpersuasive.

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