
    Douglas PETERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Denny BLAUER; Under-Sheriff Deputies; George Anderson, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-36033.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 6, 2012.
    Filed March 12, 2012.
    Michael P. Manning, Holland & Hart, LLP, Billings, MT, Scott Elliott Randolph, Holland & Hart, LLP, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Douglas Peterson, Shelby, MT, pro se.
    Dee Ann Cooney, Esquire, Cooney Law Firm, Michael William Sehestedt, Maco Legal Services, Helena, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Douglas Peterson appeals the district court’s denial of his postjudgment motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief under Rule 60(b)(1). See Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2000) (reviewing denial of a Rule 60(b)(1) motion for an abuse of discretion). A district court may correct an error of law under Rule 60(b)(1). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.1982); Gila River Ranch, Inc. v. United States, 368 F.2d 354, 357 (9th Cir.1966). The court’s refusal to do so here, however, was not an abuse of discretion. The court identified the correct legal rule and its determination that its summary judgment order did not contain a clear error of law was neither illogical, implausible nor without support in inferences that could be drawn from the record. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Given the lack of admissible evidence supporting the inference that the defendants were aware of Peterson’s requests for medical care, showers and personal hygiene items, the district court plausibly concluded that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (holding that “there is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party”).

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