Case Name: Ben BRUNSTON; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bill BRADBURY, Oregon Secretary of State; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-14
Citations: 81 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 03-35023; D.C. No. CV-02-06223-HO
Parties: Ben BRUNSTON; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bill BRADBURY, Oregon Secretary of State; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
Ben BRUNSTON; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bill BRADBURY, Oregon Secretary of State; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-35023.
D.C. No. CV-02-06223-HO.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 10, 2003.
Decided Nov. 14, 2003.
Steven E. Benson, Attorney at Law, Portland, OR, Walter D. Nunley, pro se, Medford, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Brendan C. Dunn, Office of the Attorney General (Oregon), Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before KOZINSKI, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ben Brunston, Steve Piter, Walter D. Nunley, and Sharman Johnson appeal the district court's judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and the district court's order denying their Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reconsider. We affirm in part, and dismiss in part.
Appellants' filed their motion to reconsider more than 10 days after entry of judgment. The motion therefore, did not toll the time in which to appeal the underlying judgment and was properly construed as a Rule 60(b) motion. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir.2001).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants' motion to reconsider because appellants presented no grounds justifying relief under Rule 60(b). See Am. Ironworks, 248 F.3d at 899.
We lack jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment because appellants' notice of appeal is not timely as to the judgment.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.