Opinion
2:08-cv-1200-LDG-LRL.
October 31, 2011
ORDER
By order dated September 24, 2009 (#65), this court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment. In its order, the court rejected Parker's contention that the contracting officer lacked authority, and determined that Parker had failed to raise an issue of fact regarding whether the contracting officer's decision was final. By order dated September 24, 2010 (#83), the court rejected Parker's motion for reconsideration based on the finality of the subject decision and Parker's failure to appeal it. On that date, the court also entered final judgment in favor of the United States (#84).
Parker has now filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate final judgment for being void, and to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (#89, response #90, reply #92). Parker has not demonstrated grounds for relief. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Furthermore, to the extent that Parker challenges the court's subject matter jurisdiction based on the contracting officer's alleged lack of authority, that position was rejected by this court twice before the entry of final judgment. The remaining contentions asserted in Parker's Rule 60(b)(4) motion and motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction also lack merit. Accordingly,
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that defendant Parker's Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate judgment and to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (#89) is DENIED.