MEMORANDUM **

Robert Henderson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging fraud and theft in connection with his veteran’s benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order. Malone *451 v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Henderson’s action because Henderson failed to comply with court-ordered discovery even after the district court warned him that noncompliance could result in dismissal, and granted him three months to show good cause for his noncompliance. See id. (setting forth the five factors the district court must consider before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a court order).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.