Case Name: Joseph B. CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION FOR THE STATE OF OREGON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-17
Citations: 171 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 05-35464
Parties: Joseph B. CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION FOR THE STATE OF OREGON; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
Joseph B. CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION FOR THE STATE OF OREGON; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-35464.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 17, 2006.
Joseph B. Castillo, Portland, OR, pro se.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joseph B. Castillo appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider the order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Because Castillo failed to file his motion to reconsider within 10 days after entry of the final order of dismissal, the motion to reconsider did not toll the time to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the order entered by the district court on April 20, 2004. See Am. Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir.2000).
We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion ("Rule 60(b) motion"). See Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2000). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Castillo's Rule 60(b) motion because he failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from judgment. See id.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.