Araya Wolde-giorgis, Dr., and His Family Members, Plaintiff-appellant, v. William P. Schrader, President, Salt River Valley Waterusers Association and Salt River Project Agriculturalimprovement and Power District (srp); Salt River Projectagricultural Improvement and Power District; Salt Rivervalley Water Users Association, Defendants-appellees, 141 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Araya Wolde-Giorgis appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in his consolidated actions alleging that the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District disconnected his electrical service for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons, rather than because he failed to pay his electric bills. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment and we affirm. See Jesinger v. Nevada, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994).

Because Giorgis received adequate notice of summary judgment, see Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that the district court had no affirmative duty to inform a non-prisoner pro se litigant of the need to file affidavits or other evidentiary matter in opposition to summary judgment), and failed to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, the district court properly granted summary judgment. See Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1130.

The district did not abuse its discretion by denying Giorgis's motion to amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because it was untimely, see Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993), or by denying Giorgis's motion for new trial because it did not contain newly discovered evidence which by reasonable diligence was not discoverable at the time of judgment. See Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.¹