Moord v. Birdsong
Opinion of the Court
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.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Terrance Kent MOORD, Plaintiff—Appellant v. James BIRDSONG Sherri A. Sarrio Steven Bentz, Defendants—Appellees
- Status
- Published