
    Scott MALCOMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOPPS, INC., Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 10-15540.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 28, 2011.
    
      Scott Malcomson, Mesa, AZ, pro se.
    John F. Battaile, Altfeld, Battaile & Goldman, P.C., Tucson, AZ, David G. Ebert, Mioko Tajika, Ingram, Yuzek, Gain-en, Carroll & Bertolotti, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    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

Scott Malcomson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging joint ownership of a copyright under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1230 (9th Cir.2000), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of reconsideration, Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Malcomson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his periodic written contributions to a small portion of a popular science fiction gaming franchise satisfied the test for joint ownership of the entire work. See Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d at 1234 (listing factors to determine whether a work is jointly authored in the absence of a contract for purposes of a copyright claim of joint ownership).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because Malcomson failed to establish that it committed “clear error” or made a decision that was “manifestly unjust.” Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 740.

Malcomson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We decline to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir.2006).

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