Case Name: Eric A. SMART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-29
Citations: 36 F. App'x 909
Docket Number: No. 99-56523; D.C. No. CV-96-08388-CBM
Parties: Eric A. SMART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 36
Pages: 909–910

Head Matter:
Eric A. SMART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 99-56523.
D.C. No. CV-96-08388-CBM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2002.
Decided May 29, 2002.
Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
. John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor, Janet Reno, as Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Consequently, Smart’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eric Smart appeals the district court's denial of his requests for reconsideration and its underlying order dismissing his pro se employment discrimination action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order.
We lack jurisdiction to address Smart's contentions regarding the merits of the district court's original entry of judgment because Smart both failed to file a 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. Therefore, his appeal of the underlying judgment is dismissed.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we have jurisdiction over his timely appeal from the district court's denial of his requests for reconsideration and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smart's requests for reconsideration, which it treated as motions for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.16. "Only in rare cases will we question the exercise of discretion in connection with the application of local rules." United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir.1979).
DISMISSED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.