Kevin McKenzie appeals the district court’s 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) dismissal of his diversity action. We affirm.

Upon careful review of the record, see Rodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 135 F.3d 1216, 1218-19 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that McKenzie intentionally failed to prosecute his case and comply with the court’s scheduling order, resulting in undue delay that was prejudicial to the defense. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case as a sanction. See Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 988-90 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (dismissal for undue delay and failure to comply with court orders was not abuse of discretion when litigation had been pending for 18 months and petitioner repeatedly failed to meet court’s discovery schedule); Farnsworth v. Kansas City, Mo., 863 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (pro se litigants are not excused from complying with court orders).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.