
    Lane GROW, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Adam GARCIA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-17055.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 28, 2011.
    Marie Claire Mirch, Esquire, Mirch & Mirch, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Frank H. Roberts, Assistant General Counsel, Nevada System of Higher Education, University of Nevada, Reno Office of General Counsel, Reno, NV, Marta Adams, Senior Deputy Attorney General, K. Kevin Benson, Esquire, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lane Grow appeals from the district court’s order denying him an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims related to his termination from the University of Nevada Reno Police Department. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Grow failed to establish good cause or excusable neglect for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal after weighing all factors relevant to its equitable determination. See Fed.R.App. P 4(a)(5)(A) (a party must show good cause or excusable neglect to obtain extension of time to file notice of appeal); Pincay, 389 F.3d at 855 (listing factors to determine excusable neglect). The district court did not clearly err in concluding that counsel’s last-minute excuse regarding computer problems was manufactured, unverifiable, or implausible, and that it failed to establish either good cause based on events beyond counsel’s control or otherwise constitute excusable neglect. See id. at 859 (district court is in a better position to evaluate relevant factors for excusable neglect in each case).

Grow’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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