MEMORANDUM **

Elmer R. Seevers appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his action alleging constitutional violations arising from injuries that he suffered while employed by the Department of the Navy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Disk No. U, Multnomah Coun *298 ty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Seevers’s motion for reconsideration because Seevers failed to establish any basis for reconsideration. See id. at 1263 (Rule 60(b) permits reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances that would justify relief).

Seevers’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.