Case Name: Aaron RAISER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF UPLAND, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-23
Citations: 516 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 11-55909
Parties: Aaron RAISER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF UPLAND, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 674–675

Head Matter:
Aaron RAISER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF UPLAND, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-55909.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 23, 2013.
Aaron Raiser, Woodland Hills, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, 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
Aaron Raiser appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Upland police officers violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of IFP. Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.
Contrary to Raiser's contention, the district court was not required to review de novo Raiser's purported objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation that his request to proceed IFP be denied. See Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (a pro se litigant is not entitled to file written objections to a magistrates judge's recommendation to deny an IFP request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72). Moreover, it was reasonable under the circumstances for the district court to treat Raiser's objections as a motion for reconsideration.
We do not consider whether the district court properly denied Raiser's request for IFP because Raiser does not specifically and distinctly raise and argue that issue in his opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
Raiser's motion to consolidate this case with a case that has since been closed is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.