Case Name: Charlotte R. BLY-MAGEE, an individual, aka Seal 2, Plaintiff-Appellant, and United States of America, aka Seal 1, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth SMEDBERG; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-24
Citations: 88 F. App'x 243
Docket Number: No. 03-56083
Parties: Charlotte R. BLY-MAGEE, an individual, aka Seal 2, Plaintiff—Appellant, and United States of America, aka Seal 1, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth SMEDBERG; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 243–243

Head Matter:
Charlotte R. BLY-MAGEE, an individual, aka Seal 2, Plaintiff—Appellant, and United States of America, aka Seal 1, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth SMEDBERG; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-56083.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
Decided Feb. 24, 2004.
Charlotte R. Bly-Magee, pro se, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Douglas N. Letter, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Mark V. Santa Romana, AGCA—Office of The California Attorney General (LA), Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER 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
Charlotte Bly-Magee appeals pro se the district court's May 22, 2003, order denying her motion brought pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) for relief from the district court's December 18, 2002, order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss Bly-Magee's Third Amended Complaint. We lack jurisdiction because two claims remain pending in the district court and the district court has not certified that there is no just reason to delay entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir.1981).
This appeal is DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.