Case Name: Clinton M. TULLIS; Margaret L. Tullis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEE, SMART, COOK, MARTIN & PATTERSON PS INC.; West and Collins PS Law Office; Creighton Hutchins; Jane Doe Hutchins, and the marital community comprised thereof; Karen A. Kalzer; John Doe Kalzer, and the marital community comprised thereof; Rory W. Leid; Jane Doe Leid, and the marital community comprised thereof; Robert E. West; Jane Doe West, and the marital community comprised thereof, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-29
Citations: 6 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 00-35558; D.C. No. CV-00-00067-Z
Parties: Clinton M. TULLIS; Margaret L. Tullis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEE, SMART, COOK, MARTIN & PATTERSON PS INC.; West and Collins PS Law Office; Creighton Hutchins; Jane Doe Hutchins, and the marital community comprised thereof; Karen A. Kalzer; John Doe Kalzer, and the marital community comprised thereof; Rory W. Leid; Jane Doe Leid, and the marital community comprised thereof; Robert E. West; Jane Doe West, and the marital community comprised thereof, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 6
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
Clinton M. TULLIS; Margaret L. Tullis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEE, SMART, COOK, MARTIN & PATTERSON PS INC.; West and Collins PS Law Office; Creighton Hutchins; Jane Doe Hutchins, and the marital community comprised thereof; Karen A. Kalzer; John Doe Kalzer, and the marital community comprised thereof; Rory W. Leid; Jane Doe Leid, and the marital community comprised thereof; Robert E. West; Jane Doe West, and the marital community comprised thereof, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-35558. D.C. No. CV-00-00067-Z.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.
Decided March 29, 2001.
Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Clinton M. and Margaret L. Tullís appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. See Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir.1995).
Insofar as the Tullís' contend that the district court erred by failing to certify their action as a class action or by dismissing federal environmental and civil rights claims against these defendants, we reject these contentions as meritless.
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Tullís' motion for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.