Moord

Moord v. Birdsong

Good Law
155 F. App'x 991
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 14, 2005No. 04-55826; D.C. No. CV-01-02036-BTMCalifornia212 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Terrance Kent Moord appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his request for a hearing date and request for an extension of time to submit a motion for reconsideration of the court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants deprived him of his right to personal hygiene. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision regarding the enlargement of time. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b); Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Moord’s request for a hearing date on a motion the district court never received. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Moord’s request for an extension of time to file a motion to reconsider where Moord’s supporting declaration revealed he did not intend to challenge the court’s underlying decision to dismiss his action on statute of limitations grounds. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b); Jenkins, 95 F.3d at 795 .

*992 Moord’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.