Home/Ninth Circuit/Larry Synclair, Sr. v. County of Fresno

Larry Synclair, Sr. v. County of Fresno

467 F. App'x 615
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 25, 2012·No. 10-16225·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Larry Synclair, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the clerk’s taxation of costs against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, Sch. Dist. No. U, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Synclair’s motion for reconsideration of the clerk’s cost award because Synclair identified no proper ground for such relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60); see also Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) (requiring that a party file a motion challenging the clerk’s cost award within seven days); Walker v. California, 200 F.3d 624, 625-26 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (a party waives the right to challenge a cost award if the party does not file a motion for review of the award within the time period specified in Rule 54(d)(1)).

We are not persuaded by Synclair’s contention that he, rather than his attorney of *616 record, should have been served with the clerk’s cost award, because neither a substitution of attorney nor a change of address was filed before the award. See E.D. Cal. R. 182(d), (f) (attorney withdrawals and address changes).

Synclair’s “Motion to Include Addendum to Informal Opening Brief,” filed on January 4, 2011, is denied because the proposed addendum is irrelevant to the disposition of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Larry Synclair, Sr. v. County of Fresno, 467 F. App'x 615 (9th Cir. 2012).

467 F. App'x 615 (Larry Synclair, Sr. v. County of Fresno) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Walker v. California
200 F.3d 624 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)