Case Name: Gloria MARKS, Plaintiff, and Mamie D. HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Seattle, a Municipal corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-04
Citations: 125 F. App'x 170
Docket Number: No. 04-35197
Parties: Gloria MARKS, Plaintiff, and Mamie D. HILL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. City of Seattle, a Municipal corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
Gloria MARKS, Plaintiff, and Mamie D. HILL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. City of Seattle, a Municipal corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-35197.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit;
Submitted March 23, 2005.
Decided April 4, 2005.
Mamie D. Hill, Kirkland, WA, pro se.
Roger Hillman, Jennifer D. Bucher, Esq., Garvey Schubert & Barer, Medora A. Marisseau, Esq., Bullivant Houser Bailey, Bruce E.H. Johnson, Esq., Diana C. Tate, Davis Wright & Tremaine, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mamie D. Hill appeals pro se the district court's order denying her motion to reconsider the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a workplace dispute. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Fiester v. Turner, 783 F.2d 1474 (9th Cir. 1986), and we affirm.
Western District of Washington Local Rule CR7(h) requires motions for reconsideration to be filed within ten judicial days of the order to which it relates. Hill's motion was filed thirteen days after judgment was entered dismissing her section 1983 action. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration as untimely. See Guam Sasaki Corp. v. Diana's Inc., 881 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir.1989) (noting this court should accord broad deference to the district court's interpretation of local rules).
Hill's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.