Case Name: George M. LEWIS, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-21
Citations: 143 F. App'x 897
Docket Number: No. 04-57018
Parties: George M. LEWIS, M.D., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 143
Pages: 897–898

Head Matter:
George M. LEWIS, M.D., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-57018.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.
Decided Sept. 21, 2005.
George M. Lewis, M.D., Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Debra A. Yang, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Mary R. Pelletier, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
George M. Lewis appeals pro se the district court's order denying as untimely his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in his Freedom of Information Act action against the Internal Revenue Service and others. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North American Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Lewis' motion was untimely because it was filed more than a year after final judgment and did not present evidence germane to the underlying cause of action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (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 provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.