Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Virgil POPESCU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-56648
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 7, 2016
    Virgil Popescu, Pro Se
    Thomas S. Patterson, Esquire, Supervisory Attorney, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Bonita Stewart, T.K. Ayala, Louie Saldana, Michael Ortiz, Edward Galindo, Kenneth Ford, William Gore
    Morris Gerard Hill, Esquire, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees William Gore and C. Desalme
    Before; LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Virgil Popescu appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Popescu’s motion for reconsideration because Popescu failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.