Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Terry SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John HAUGEN; Marc Okuley, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-35449.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 14, 2014.
    
    Filed March 20, 2015.
    William Terry Smith, Wasilla, AK, pro se.
    Matthias R. Cicotte, Assistant Attorney General, State of Alaska, Department of Law Office of the Attorney General, Juneau, AK, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Terry Smith 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 as barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Benson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir. 2012). We review the underlying law de novo to determine whether the district court abused its discretion by relying on an inaccurate view of the law. Id.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for reconsideration because he failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

We do not address issues that were neither raised in Smith’s motion for reconsideration nor addressed in the district court’s order denying that motion. See Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.