MEMORANDUM **

Maiga Hralima, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was forcibly medicated in 2002 and 2003. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hralima’s action because his § 1983 claims, filed more than two years after his causes of action accrued, were barred by the statute of limitations. See Nev.Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(e); Taylor v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 711-12 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend where amendment would be futile. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

Hralima’s remaining contentions, including those concerning tolling, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.