Leslie M. James appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. We treat the district court’s July 29, 2014 order as denying a second motion for reconsideration, and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion- because James failed to establish grounds for such relief. See id. at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration); see also Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>). We lack jurisdiction to consider James’s
holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a rule 60b motion when the relevant change in law occurred eight months prior and petitioner filed the motion two days before his execution holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely made a motion to join a party under fed r civ p 20 and noting that court likewise would not have erred if motion had been made under fed r civ p 19 holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a fed r civ p 60b motion where movants reiterated arguments raised previously and did not present any basis to vacate the challenged order