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:T40d,MEMORANDUM Lawtis Donald Rhoden, a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with the regulation of his personal computer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rhoden’s motion for reconsideration because Rhoden failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See id. at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)). We do not' consider Rhoden’s challenge to the underlying dismissal or pretrial motions because Rhoden failed to appeal the judgment against him in a timely manner. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T43f,

MEMORANDUM

Lawtis Donald Rhoden, a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with the regulation of his personal computer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rhoden’s motion for reconsideration because Rhoden failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See id. at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

We do not' consider Rhoden’s challenge to the underlying dismissal or pretrial motions because Rhoden failed to appeal the judgment against him in a timely manner. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

AFFIRMED.

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