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:T416,MEMORANDUM Dwight A. Staten, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants fabricated a rules violation report against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. 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 denying Staten’s motion to reconsider because he did not advance any applicable ground for relief under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth requirements for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60). We do not consider issues that were not raised in Staten’s opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T448,

MEMORANDUM

Dwight A. Staten, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants fabricated a rules violation report against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. 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 denying Staten’s motion to reconsider because he did not advance any applicable ground for relief under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth requirements for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60).

We do not consider issues that were not raised in Staten’s opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

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