LARRY SYNCLAIR, Sr., individually and as a parent of Larry Synclair, Jr., a minor v. County of Fresno;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY SYNCLAIR, Sr., individually and
as a parent of Larry Synclair, Jr., a minor,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF FRESNO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16225
D.C. No. 1:01-cv-06546-AWI-
DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Larry Synclair, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for reconsideration of the clerk’s taxation of costs against him. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
FILED
JAN 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16225 2
district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Synclair’s motion
for reconsideration of the clerk’s cost award because Synclair identified no proper
ground for such relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (requiring that a party
file a motion challenging the clerk’s cost award within seven days); Walker v.
California, 200 F.3d 624, 625-26 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (a party waives the
right to challenge a cost award if the party does not file a motion for review of the
award within the time period specified in Rule 54(d)(1)).
We are not persuaded by Synclair’s contention that he, rather than his
attorney of record, should have been served with the clerk’s cost award, because
neither a substitution of attorney nor a change of address was filed before the
award. See E.D. Cal. R. 182(d), (f) (attorney withdrawals and address changes).
Synclair’s “Motion to Include Addendum to Informal Opening Brief,” filed
on January 4, 2011, is denied because the proposed addendum is irrelevant to the
disposition of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --