
    Nadeem AHMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-18047.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2014.
    Nadeem Ahmad, Elk Grove, CA, pro se.
    Mary Elizabeth Holt, Esquire, Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Severson & Werson, San Francisco, CA, Lawrence D. Harris, Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nadeem Ahmad appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993) (motion for reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (compliance with local rules). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ahmad’s motion for reconsideration because Ahmad failed to establish grounds for such relief. See E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3)-(4) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under local rules); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)). We reject Ahmad’s arguments concerning the merits of his claim.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ahmad’s motion to reopen the time to appeal the judgment. See Arai v. Am. Bryce Ranches Inc., 316 F.3d 1066, 1069-70 (9th Cir.2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court has discretion to deny motion to reopen the time to appeal the judgment even when Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6)’s requirements are met).

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