Case Name: George L. MOTHERSHED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerome K. ELWELL; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-24
Citations: 235 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 06-15496
Parties: George L. MOTHERSHED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerome K. ELWELL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 683–684

Head Matter:
George L. MOTHERSHED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerome K. ELWELL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-15496.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2007 .
Filed Aug. 24, 2007.
George L. Mothershed, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Jerome K. Elwell, pro se.
Larry Schafer, Esq., Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek, PLC, Richard F. Albrecht, Esq., Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, and we deny Mothershed's motion for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
George L. Mothershed appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motions for reconsideration of its judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Smith v. Pacific Props. and Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court did not err in denying Mothershed's motions, because Mothershed contended only that he disagrees with the district court's interpretation of the law, and failed to show an intervening change in the controlling law or newly discovered evidence. See 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.1999) ("a motion for reconsideration should not be granted . unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the con-, trolling law.").
Mothershed's remaining contentions are also unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.