NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID STEVEN BRAUN, No. 18-16641 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:17-cv-06294-SVK v. MEMORANDUM* YAHOO! INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan van Keulen, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted August 19, 2019*** Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

David Steven Braun appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his diversity action alleging issues with his Yahoo e-mail account. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Braun’s action because Braun failed to file a second amended complaint, or to explain why he did not do so, as ordered. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61; see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing the authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)).

Braun’s contentions regarding his right to appointment of counsel in the district court and the lack of finality of the district court’s order are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-16641