Case ID: f-appx_23/html/0683-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Thomas PECKHAM; Patricia Peckham, Defendants—Appellants.
    No. 00-56560.
    D.C. No. CV-98-01352-JTM.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 5, 2001.
    
    Decided Nov. 14, 2001.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding.
    Before BROWNING, KLEINFELD, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Peckhams' request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Thomas and Patricia Peckham appeal pro se the district court’s order denying their motion for reconsideration of summary judgment for the United States in this ejectment action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We lack jurisdiction to address the Peckhams’ arguments concerning the merits of the district court’s original entry of judgment because the Peckhams both failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 60 days of entry of final judgment and failed to file a timely post judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R.App. P. 4. Accordingly by order dated October 11, 2000, this court limited the scope of the Peck-hams’ appeal to the court’s denial of their motion to reconsider.

“An untimely motion for reconsideration is construed as a motion based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).” Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1463 n. 35 (9th Cir.1992). Denial of such a motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). Because the Peckhams failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly-discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from judgment, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying their motion to reconsider. See id., at 1262-63.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.