Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0297-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elmer R. SEEVERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-56680.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 6, 2010.
    Elmer R. Seevers, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Caroline J. Clark, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for DefendantsAppellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elmer R. Seevers appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his action alleging constitutional violations arising from injuries that he suffered while employed by the Department of the Navy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Disk No. U, Multnomah Coun ty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Seevers’s motion for reconsideration because Seevers failed to establish any basis for reconsideration. See id. at 1263 (Rule 60(b) permits reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances that would justify relief).

Seevers’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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