Victor J. Sharp appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute. For reversal, Sharp argues he did not know of certain procedural rules and he was acting pro se. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal. See Sterling v. United States, 985 F.2d 411, 412 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (standard of review). Sharp was ordered to respond to defendants’ summary judgment motion, was given an extension of time to respond, and was warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal. Sharp nevertheless chose not to respond to the summary judgment motion even after the extension deadline had passed. See First Gen. Res. Co. v. Elton Leather Corp., 958 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (dismissal justified where district court twice ordered plaintiffs to respond to discovery requests, provided them extensions, and expressly warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal); see also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants must comply with substantive and procedural law).

Accordingly, we affirm.