MEMORANDUM **

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Charles T. Davis’s *269 (“Davis”) action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) after warning Davis to comply with its order to appear at his deposition and weighing the pertinent factors. See Pagtaliman v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors that courts must consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not consider Davis’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.