Case Name: Jan C. RUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SONORA QUEST LABORATORIES LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-11
Citations: 127 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 04-15518
Parties: Jan C. RUST, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SONORA QUEST LABORATORIES LLC; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 341–341

Head Matter:
Jan C. RUST, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SONORA QUEST LABORATORIES LLC; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-15518.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2005.
Decided April 11, 2005.
Jan C. Rust, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
Lonnie J. Williams, Jr., Esq., Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jan C. Rust appeals pro se the district court's order denying her third Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see Pasatiempo by Pasatiempo v. Aizawa, 103 F.3d 796, 801 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rust's motion for relief from judgment because it merely reargued issues that the court had already considered and rejected, see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir.2001), and did not satisfy any of the grounds for relief articulated in Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), see School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 363.