NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM TERRY SMITH, No. 13-35449
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00249-RRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN HAUGEN; MARC OKULEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2014**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
William Terry Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for reconsideration following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action as barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We affirm.
*
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).
We review the district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration for
abuse of discretion. Benson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 1207, 1211
(9th Cir. 2012). We review the underlying law de novo to determine whether the
district court abused its discretion by relying on an inaccurate view of the law. Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for
reconsideration because he failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).
We do not address issues that were neither raised in Smith’s motion for
reconsideration nor addressed in the district court’s order denying that motion. See
Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
2