Michael Woolman appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his pro se action for failure to prosecute and to comply with a court order. We conclude that the court was well within its discretion to dismiss the action, because Woolman failed to comply with the court’s order to file an amended complaint by a certain date, and the court had expressly warned Woolman that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of his claims. Further, the dismissal was without prejudice. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b); Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (lesser sanction of dismissal without prejudice militates against finding that court abused its discretion in dismissing under Rule 41(b)).

Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny as moot the pending motion for discovery.