Case Name: Carey Dwayne DORSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-25
Citations: 481 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 11-55434
Parties: Carey Dwayne DORSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 417–417

Head Matter:
Carey Dwayne DORSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-55434.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 25, 2012.
Carey Dwayne Dorsey, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
Susan Ruth Oxford, Esquire, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carey Dwayne Dorsey appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration in his Freedom of Information Act action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dorsey's motion for reconsideration because Dorsey failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).
We lack jurisdiction to review the district court's summary .judgment because Dorsey failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), (4) (notice of appeal must be filed within sixty days after entry of judgment if one of the parties is a United States agency, and only timely tolling motion suspends time to appeal). Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of the appeal.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.