
    Floydell NUNN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Michael Adam, Plaintiff, v. William DOWNWARD, individually and in their official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and County of Orange; et al., Defendants.
    No. 11-56913.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 20, 2013.
    
    Filed June 10, 2013.
    Caree Annette Harper, Esquire, Law Offices of Caree Annette Harper, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Shannon Lin Gustafson, S. Frank Harrell, Lynberg & Watkins, Orange, Brianne Jennifer Skopinich, The Doctors Company, Los Angeles, Christopher Daniel Whyte, Best, Best & Krieger, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: KLEINFELD, LUCERO , and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the lodestar amount for the award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). It properly determined reasonable hourly rates and a reasonable number of hours and “exclude[d] hours ‘that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’ ” McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by reducing the award of attorney’s fees because of the “limited success” and lack of “meaningful public benefit.” Id. at 1103. The “amount [was] reasonable and the court fully explain[ed] its reasoning,” so there was no abuse of discretion. Id. at 1102.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Plaintiffs counsel. See De Dios v. Int’l Realty & Invs., 641 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir.2011). The record supports the court’s finding that Plaintiffs counsel acted intentionally in violating court orders and rules, which justified the court’s use of its inherent authority to award sanctions. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2001).

Plaintiffs opening brief failed to adequately argue the issues of costs and the motion for judgment as a matter of law, so we need not and do not reach those issues. Humble v. Boeing Co., 305 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir.2002).

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