Maria Roldan-Tennant appeals following the district court’s 1 dismissal of her civil action, upon motion by defendants below, for failure to comply with court rules and orders. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Roldan-Tennant’s repeated motions seeking recusal. See Am. Prairie Constr. Co. v. Hoich, 560 F.3d 780, 789-90 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). We also conclude that the district court was well within its discretion to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Among other conduct demonstrating a refusal to cooperate in discovery matters, Roldan-Tennant failed to attend a court-ordered deposition and a court-ordered motions hearing — without giving the district court any notice or excuse — even after the court expressly warned Roldan-Tennant that failure to cooperate in pretrial discovery and to attend a properly noticed deposition could result in dismissal of her suit. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); DiMercurio v. Malcom, 716 F.3d 1138, 1139-40 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant appellees’ motion to strike.