
    Theodore J. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15483.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 23, 2013.
    Theodore J. Thompson, Little Rock, AR, pro se.
    Jeffrey I. Pitegoff, Esquire, Pitegoff Law Office, Arthur Tuverson, John Kirk, Esquire, Law Office of Arthur Tuverson, Eric K. Stryker, Esquire, Senior, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Anthony Dean Lauria, Esquire, Senior Trial, Lauria Tokunaga Gates & Linn LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Theodore J. Thompson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the imposition of discovery sanctions. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing terminating sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) based on Thompson’s willful and repeated violations of the court’s discovery orders after the court repeatedly warned Thompson of the possibility of terminating sanctions. See id. (discussing factors for evaluating terminating sanctions); Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that “[djisobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant is sufficient to demonstrate willfulness,” and that district court’s finding of willfulness is reviewed for clear error).

Thompson’s contentions that the district court failed to consider his proposed third amended complaint prior to dismissal, his deposition failed to comply with the requirements of 7 C.F.R. § 1.148, the district court held him to an improper standard, and the district court erred in dismissing all claims against all defendants, are unpersuasive.

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