Adam

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Adam appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and order denying his motion for reconsideration in his action alleging that defendants breached an insurance contract and deprived him of civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 , 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir.2003), review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, id. at 1046 , and affirm.

Adam contends the district court failed to consider the fact that he filed a timely action in state court which tolled the statute of limitations. To the contrary, the record reflects that the district court properly tolled the statute from the date Adam made his insurance claim until January 28, 2002, which was after his state court action was dismissed on May 2, 2001. See Christiansen v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 88 Hawaii 442 , 967 P.2d 639, 651 (1998), aff'd in pari and rev’d in part, 88 Hawaii 136 , 963 P.2d 345, 349 (1998) (discussing equitable tolling doctrine).

Adam also contends the district court erred…