Cdcr

MEMORANDUM

Virgil Popescu 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 alleging federal and state law claims. 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). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Popescu’s motion for reconsideration because Popescu failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

AFFIRMED.

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