
    Benjamin A. GIBBS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. HERNANDEZ, Officer, individual & official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-55462
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 04, 2016
    Benjamin A. Gibbs, Pro Se
    Thomas Kirby Buck, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees A. Matevousian, Harrell Watts, Francisco J. Quintana
    Thomas Kirby Buck, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Marsha Michiko Yasuda, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee C. Hernandez
    Before: SCHROEDER, 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

Benjamin Gibbs, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging constitutional violations in connection with a contraband search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gibbs’s motion for reconsideration because Gibbs failed to set forth any grounds for relief. See id. at 1262-63; see also Schikore v. BankAmerica Supplemental Retirement Plan, 269 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The mailbox rule provides that the proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that the document has been received by the addressee in the usual time. It is a settled feature of the federal common law.”).

Gibbs’s evidence regarding his outgoing mail, raised for the first time in his reply brief, is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     