Norberto Medina v. JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Medina consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NORBERTO MEDINA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16899
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00413-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 17, 2012***
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Norberto Medina appeals pro se from the district
court’s orders denying his motions for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FILED
JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16899 2
action alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion,
Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006), and
we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Medina’s motions
for reconsideration because Medina failed to show grounds warranting
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth bases for reconsideration).
Medina’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --