Case Name: Samuel DODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-22
Citations: 707 F. App'x 498
Docket Number: No. 16-17264
Parties: Samuel DODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 498–498

Head Matter:
Samuel DODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-17264
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 22, 2017
Samuel Dodson, Pro Se
D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas) Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, 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
Samuel Dodson, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. Foley v. Biter, 793 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2016), We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dodson's motion for relief because Dodson failed to show "extraordinary circumstances prevented [him] from timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment." Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,