
    Gregory DOWNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-15669.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 19, 2016.
    Gregory Downs, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    
      Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral" argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Gregory Downs appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Downs failed to address the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a court order in his opening brief, and has therefore waived this issue on appeal. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003) (“[W]e review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Downs’s motion for disqualification of the magistrate judge because Downs’s disagreement with the magistrate judge’s rulings does not provide a basis for recusal. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir.2010) (“[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by .the court in its judicial capacity will rarely support recusal.”); Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2008) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(a)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Downs’s motion for appointment of counsel because Downs failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir.2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Downs’s motion to amend the judgment because Downs failed to establish any grounds for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for granting reconsideration).

Because the district court dismissed Downs’s action for failure to comply with court orders, we do not consider Downs’s contentions regarding the merits of his complaint.

All pending motions and requests are denied..

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