Case Name: Solomon FARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOLANO COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-27
Citations: 393 F. App'x 494
Docket Number: No. 09-16587
Parties: Solomon FARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOLANO COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 494–495

Head Matter:
Solomon FARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOLANO COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-16587.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
Filed Aug. 27, 2010.
Solomon Farr, pro se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, 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
Solomon Farr, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. See 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 concluding that Farr failed to establish grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). See id. at 1263 (listing grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.