Opinion
No. 08-35785.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 5, 2010.
Arthur S. West, Olympia, WA, pro se.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Thomas Merton Woods, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Terence A. Pruit, Assistant Attorney General, AGWA — Office of the Washington Attorney General, Jeffrey Scott Myers, Esquire, Law Lyman Daniel Kamerrer, et al., Olympia, WA, Carolyn Lake, Goodstein Law Group, Tacoma, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:07-05580-RBL.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Arthur S. West's ("West") motion to reconsider because he presented no grounds justifying relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (listing grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)).
We lack jurisdiction to consider West's challenges to the underlying judgment because the notice of appeal was filed more than sixty days after entry of judgment, and the motion to reconsider did not toll the time to appeal from the judgment. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(B), (a)(4)(A)(vi).
West's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.