Case Name: William J. BABCOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF CAMP VERDE, a municipal corporation; et al., Defendants - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-20
Citations: 103 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 03-16141
Parties: William J. BABCOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF CAMP VERDE, a municipal corporation; et al., Defendants — Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
William J. BABCOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF CAMP VERDE, a municipal corporation; et al., Defendants — Appellees.
No. 03-16141.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2004.
Decided July 20, 2004.
William J. Babcock, Camp Verde, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Scott M. MacMillan, Green & Baker, Scottsdale, AZ, Michael L. Green, Esq., Green & Baker Ltd., Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
William J. Babcock appeals pro se the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) motion to set aside the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Town of Camp Verde and various municipal officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.
Because Babcock's § 1983 action was without merit, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to set aside the judgment on futility grounds. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993).
We do not consider Babcock's contention that his attorney had not properly prepared his case because Babcock did not raise this issue before the district court. See, e.g., Bolker v. Commissioner, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985) (issue not raised below is not preserved on appeal).
Construing Babcock's appeal brief liberally, Babcock contends that he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel and that his privately-retained attorney therefore violated his federally-protected rights. This contention fails because "it is well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases." United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir.1996).
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.