Case Name: Brian Terrell HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, State Board of Control Government Claims Division; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-15
Citations: 72 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 02-17268; D.C. No. CV-99-06808-AWI
Parties: Brian Terrell HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, State Board of Control Government Claims Division; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 72
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
Brian Terrell HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, State Board of Control Government Claims Division; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-17268. D.C. No. CV-99-06808-AWI.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2003.
Decided Aug. 15, 2003.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Brian Terrell Hill appeals pro se the district court's order denying his motion to vacate the judgment in his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Hill failed to file his motion to vacate within 10 days after entry of judgment, so the motion to vacate did not toll the time to file an appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to address the final judgment entered on August 27, 2002. See Am. Assoc, 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill'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.