Solomon Farr v. Solano County

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appellant consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c). Appellee has not appeared in this action.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SOLOMON FARR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOLANO COUNTY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-16587
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02974-GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 10, 2010***
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Solomon Farr, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil
FILED
AUG 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16587 2
Procedure 60(b) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Farr failed
to establish grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). See id. at 1263
(listing grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --