
    Larry SYNCLAIR, Sr., individually and as a parent of Larry Synclair, Jr., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-16225.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2012.
    Larry Synclair, Sr., Jacksonville, FL, pro se.
    James D. Weakley, Esquire, Weakley & Arendt LLP, Fresno, CA, for DefendantsAppellees.
    Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Larry Synclair, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the clerk’s taxation of costs against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, Sch. Dist. No. U, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Synclair’s motion for reconsideration of the clerk’s cost award because Synclair identified no proper ground for such relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60); see also Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) (requiring that a party file a motion challenging the clerk’s cost award within seven days); Walker v. California, 200 F.3d 624, 625-26 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (a party waives the right to challenge a cost award if the party does not file a motion for review of the award within the time period specified in Rule 54(d)(1)).

We are not persuaded by Synclair’s contention that he, rather than his attorney of record, should have been served with the clerk’s cost award, because neither a substitution of attorney nor a change of address was filed before the award. See E.D. Cal. R. 182(d), (f) (attorney withdrawals and address changes).

Synclair’s “Motion to Include Addendum to Informal Opening Brief,” filed on January 4, 2011, is denied because the proposed addendum is irrelevant to the disposition of this appeal.

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