
    William Francis ROUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. HAYES, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-16390
    United States Court of Appeals, ' Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 23, 2016
    William Francis Roush, Aspe — Arizona State Prison Complex (Kingman), Huachu-ca Unit, Kingman, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Kelley J. Morrissey, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
    
      Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner William Francis Roush appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant was deliberately indifferent to Roush’s safety in connection with an assault by another inmate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal as a discovery sanction. Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Roush’s action as a discovery sanction because Roush refused to comply with an order compelling him to provide defendant with a medical records release. See id. (setting forth factors to be considered before granting dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)).

We reject as without merit Roush’s contentions that'the magistrate judge improperly warned Roush that he could be subject to discovery sanctions, and that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on preliminary matters and to recommend dismissal to the district judge.

We do not consider issues which are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993).

Roush’s requests, set forth in his opening brief, and all pending motions, are denied.

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