
    Michael FOLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michelle PONT, an individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16774
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 21, 2017
    Michael Foley, Pro Se
    Edward Boyack, Esquire, Attorney, The Doyle Firm, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Michelle Pont
    J. Stephen Peek, Attorney, Holland & Hart LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Jeffrey Pont, AP Express, AP Express Worldwide
    Timothy Baldwin, Attorney, Stephanie A. Barker, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County District Attorney’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Georgina Stuart
    Michael Dorantes, Pro Se
    Brenda Dorantes, Pro Se
    Toni Ann Iantuono, Pro Se
    Patricia Foley, Pro Se
    Dino Iantuono, Pro Se
    Christine M. Kelleher, Kelleher & Kelle-her, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees John T. Kelleher, Nikki Dupree, Kelleher & Kelleher
    
      Josh Cole Aicklen, Esquire, David Brian Avakian, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bis-gaard & Smith, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Shera Bradley
    James E. Smyth, Esquire, Attorney, Ka-empfer Crowell Renshaw Gronauer & Fiorentino, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Manuel Carranza
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Foley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Foley’s action for failure to prosecute in accordance with local rules because, after Foley failed to file documents in the district court for more than 270 days, he failed to respond timely to the district court’s notice to take action. See D. Nev. Civ. R. 41-1 (permitting dismissal after notice of actions that span 270 days without any proceeding of record); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (discussing factors to guide the court’s evaluation of dismissal for failure to comply with local rules).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not consider Foley’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996) (“[Ijnterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute[.]”).

Appellees AP Express, AP Express Worldwide, LLC, and Jeffery Pont’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9), and Foley’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, are granted.

Appellee Bradley’s request for sanctions, set forth in her answering brief, is denied without prejudice.

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