Case Name: Jesse GRANT, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. CHEA, Officer #1675, Alameda County; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-29
Citations: 469 F. App'x 629
Docket Number: No. 10-17902
Parties: Jesse GRANT, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. CHEA, Officer #1675, Alameda County; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 629–629

Head Matter:
Jesse GRANT, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. CHEA, Officer #1675, Alameda County; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17902.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 29, 2012.
Jesse Grant, III, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
John Randall Andrada, Esquire, Andra-da & Associates Professional Corporation, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, 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
California state prisoner Jesse Grant, III, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force in connection with his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grant's excessive force claims because Grant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether either Varela or Chea was driving the vehicle that allegedly struck Grant's motorcycle. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) ("There is . no genuine issue of fact if, on the record taken as a whole, a rational trier of fact could not find in favor of the party opposing the motion.")
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Grant's motion for reconsideration because Grant provided no basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60).
Grant's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.