Shong-ching Tong, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Leo v. Larue; Dennis Hegedus; Los Angeles County; Donnal. Stuebgen, Kathie M. O'connell, Wells Fargobank, Cesar Torres, Percy Hizon, Greggdeutsch, Gregg Melidonian,defendants-appellees, 106 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Shong-Ching Tong appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), and affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his report and recommendation filed on January 30, 1996, which the district court adopted in full.

We also reject Tong's contention that the district court committed reversible error by failing to abstain from proceeding on the merits until his motion to recuse was decided. Even if we assume that the district court erred by failing to abstain from proceeding on the merits, any such error was harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 862 (1988).

We have considered Tong's remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit.

AFFIRMED.