Opinion
No. 11-18047
07-22-2014
NADEEM AHMAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01200-JAM-DAD MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Nadeem Ahmad appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (compliance with local rules). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ahmad's motion for reconsideration because Ahmad failed to establish grounds for such relief. See E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3)-(4) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under local rules); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). We reject Ahmad's arguments concerning the merits of his claim.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ahmad's motion to reopen the time to appeal the judgment. See Arai v. Am. Bryce Ranches Inc., 316 F. 3d 1066, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court has discretion to deny motion to reopen the time to appeal the judgment even when Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)'s requirements are met).
AFFIRMED.