MEMORANDUM

Richard E. Shreves, a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se from the' district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shreves’s action because Shreves failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to his medical problems. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety, and negligence or a difference in medical opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); Nat'l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint” in determining whether the complaint states a- claim for relief).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shreves’s motion for reconsideration because Shreves failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

Shreves’s challenge to the denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, the reversal of a denial of a preliminary injunction would have no practical consequences, and the issue is therefore moot).

We reject as meritless Shreves’s contentions that the district court erred by failing to address his March 3, 2015 filing, or that the district court ignored new evidence submitted with his objections.

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.