for summary judgment de novo. Amro v. Boeing Co., 232 F.3d 790, 796 (10th Cir.2000). We review motions to reopen a case for abuse of • discretion. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir.2000). Here, we hold that the district court, acted properly in dismissing all of Washington’s motions. First, the district court properly denied summary judgment because it had already dismissed the case without preju dice months earlier. Second, the district court was correct to deny the motion to reopen the case because Washington never had provided any evidence showing he did not receive the show cause order warning him that his case would be dismissed. He merely provided conclusory statements that he never received it. Cf. Gurung v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 718, 722 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). He also never offered an explanation for
holding that the defendant did not require advance notice where he could not show how he was prejudiced by late notice or how he could have been helped by additional notice holding that defendant received requisite notice under rule 11 where inter alia he acknowledged at plea hearing that he had read the information understood it and discussed it with his attorney recognizing that the applicant received notice from the plea form even though such notice was not required holding that pro se asylum applicant failed to show he never received notice of hearing when he only provided conclusory statement and did not put it in proper affidavit form holding that the juvenile received inadequate notice of a hearing modifying his probation because he received no notice of the hearing or the reasons for it