Case ID: f-appx_399/html/0185-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur S. WEST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and United States Secretary of Defense; et al., Defendants.
    No. 08-35785.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 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.
    Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.