22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4d7,MEMORANDUM Eric T. Hicks appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hicks’s motion for a new trial because Hicks failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 729 (setting forth grounds for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (setting forth grounds for relief from a final judgment). To the extent that Hicks challenges the district court’s judgment dismissing his underlying action, we do not consider his contentions because Hicks did not file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (tolling motion must be filed within 28 days from entry of judgment); Fiester v. Turner, 783 F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir.1986) (order) (untimely motion does not suspend time to appeal). Hicks’s motion for discovery and sanctions, filed on November 7, 2011, is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T50e,

MEMORANDUM

Eric T. Hicks appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hicks’s motion for a new trial because Hicks failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 729 (setting forth grounds for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (setting forth grounds for relief from a final judgment).

To the extent that Hicks challenges the district court’s judgment dismissing his underlying action, we do not consider his contentions because Hicks did not file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (tolling motion must be filed within 28 days from entry of judgment); Fiester v. Turner, 783 F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir.1986) (order) (untimely motion does not suspend time to appeal).

Hicks’s motion for discovery and sanctions, filed on November 7, 2011, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.