Case Name: Nehemiah ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. CATLETT, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-29
Citations: 470 F. App'x 546
Docket Number: No. 10-56885
Parties: Nehemiah ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. CATLETT, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
Nehemiah ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. CATLETT, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-56885.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 29, 2012.
Nehemiah Robinson, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Misha Igra, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Sylvie Snyder, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, 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 Nehemiah Robinson appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants delayed assigning him to a lower bunk, confiscated his cane, denied him pain medication, and retaliated against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 807 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Robinson's post-judgment motion because Robinson failed to show any newly discovered evidence, intervening change in controlling law, clear error, or manifest injustice. See id. at 807-OS (setting forth grounds justifying reconsideration).
Robinson'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.