Case Name: Lawtis Donald RHODEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen W. MAYBERG; et al, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-02
Citations: 609 F. App'x 446
Docket Number: No. 14-15523
Parties: Lawtis Donald RHODEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen W. MAYBERG; et al, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 609
Pages: 446–446

Head Matter:
Lawtis Donald RHODEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen W. MAYBERG; et al, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-15523.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2015.
Filed July 2, 2015.
Lawtis Donald Rhoden, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Jesse Manuel Rivera, Esquire, Rivera & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lawtis Donald Rhoden, a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with the regulation of his personal computer. 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), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rhoden's motion for reconsideration because Rhoden failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See id. at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).
We do not' consider Rhoden's challenge to the underlying dismissal or pretrial motions because Rhoden failed to appeal the judgment against him in a timely manner. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.