William Michael KRAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENTON COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee, 465 F. App'x 685

MEMORANDUM William Michael Krai appeals pro se from the district court’s partial

summary-judgment and judgment dismissing his action as a sanction for failure to comply with discovery orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo partial

summary judgment, Charles Schwab & Co. v. Debickero, 593 F.3d 916, 918 (9th Cir.2010), and review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for violation of court orders, Allen v. Bayer Corp. (In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig.), 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for Krai’s violation of discovery orders after it considered the relevant factors. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab.

Litig., 460 F.3d at 1226-29, 1233 (discussing factors that courts must consider in deciding whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order, and noting that “ ‘the faults and defaults of the attorney may be imputed to, and their consequences visited upon, his or her client’ ” (citation omitted)). We do not address the district court’s partial

summary judgment because Krai did not specifically and distinctly argue the issues in his opening brief. See Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997) (“ ‘We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim ....’” (citation omitted)). Krai’s remaining contentions, including those concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.