Kendrick Harris appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We con-elude that the district court did not abuse its discretion because Harris failed to comply with the court’s order directing him to provide the names and addresses for defendants, even after being granted two extensions of time to do so. See Smith v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402, 404-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); 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); Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1983) (per cu-riam) (fact that Rule 41(b) dismissal is without prejudice mitigates against finding abuse of discretion). We further conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel. See Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review; relevant factors include complexity of case, ability of plaintiff to investigate facts and present claims, and existence of conflicting testimony).

Accordingly, we affirm.