Opinion
20-55515
06-01-2021
ALEX BAAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT&T INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 8:15-cv-02008-JLS-JCG for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Alex Baah appeals pro se from the district court's April 27, 2020 post-judgment order denying his motion for relief from judgment in his employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because Baah failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b)-(d); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).
We do not consider the district court's post-judgment orders (1) denying Baah's motion for disqualification and (2) denying reconsideration of the order denying disqualification, because the notice of appeal is untimely as to those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of judgment or order appealed from).
We do not consider Baah's contentions concerning his prior appeals, Nos. 16-56793 and 18-56358.
AFFIRMED.