indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion both the dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with a court order, Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.1987), and the denial of a reconsideration motion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint in light of Puckett’s failure to comply with numerous discovery orders despite earlier sanctions and warnings that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A) (permitting dismissal of action where a party has failed to comply with court’s discovery orders); Malone, 833 F.2d at 130 (<HOLDING>). The district court also did not abuse its
holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order holding that dismissal is not warranted where the plaintiff was unable to attend courtordered depositions because the military would not grant him leave time to comply with the courts orders holding that in considering dismissal of an appeal the court should exercise discretion to determine whether dismissal is appropriate in the circumstances presented by the case holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits holding that dismissal is appropriate where failure to comply with courts orders prejudiced the defendants and burdened both the courts docket and the public interest in speedy litigation and the district court considered less drastic sanctions and warned the plaintiff before dismissal