Carroll v. Corsaro

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 24-7513
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KASEY CARROLL, No. 24-7513 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-01348-CDS-EJY Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* S. CORSARO, Police Officer; FAC ECF #6; AGENT OF THE STATE, Psychologist; EXPERT WITNESS, Agent of the State; Psychologist; D. ALATORRE, Police Officer; FAC ECF #6; JOHN PAOLINI, Psychologist; FAC ECF #6; LIA ROLEY, Psychologist; FAC ECF #6; MARK BRATTIN, Psychologist; FAC ECF #6; MELINDA STEPHENS, FAC ECF #6; CHRISTY CRAIG, AC ECF #12; ARLENE HESHMATI, AC ECF #12; STATE OF NEVADA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Cristina D. Silva, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

The motion (Docket Entry No. 9) to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Kasey Carroll appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for

failure to comply with court orders his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for

an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Al-

Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Carroll’s action

without prejudice after Carroll failed to comply with the district court’s orders or

object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b) (a district court may dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or

to comply with these rules or a court order”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639,

640-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a

case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (explaining that the district court is not

required to review the magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions when no

party objects); Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting

forth this court’s standard for reviewing “matters in a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation to which a party fails to object before the district court”).

To the extent Carroll challenges the district court’s interlocutory orders, we

2 24-7513 do not consider those challenges. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 (“[I]nterlocutory

orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a

dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or

is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

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).

All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-7513