Appellant Sonya Chapman appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint. The district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation and dismissed Chapman’s complaint for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) and, in the alternative, because the complaint was legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)®.

*233 This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard of review to a dismissal for want of prosecution or for failure to obey a court order for. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1032 (5th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, “[w]e review a determination that a case is frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for abuse of discretion.” Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002).

We agree with the magistrate’s report that Chapman has been given ample opportunity to comply with the court’s orders and that, given her representations, her complaint is untimely and frivolous as a matter of law. See Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm for the reasons stated in the report adopted by the district court.

AFFIRMED.