Case Name: J. Michael SCHAEFER, a/k/a Michael Schaefer, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Defendant - Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-22
Citations: 168 F. App'x 798
Docket Number: No. 05-56055
Parties: J. Michael SCHAEFER, a/k/a Michael Schaefer, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Defendant — Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 798–800

Head Matter:
J. Michael SCHAEFER, a/k/a Michael Schaefer, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Defendant — Appellee.
No. 05-56055.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 22, 2006.
J. Michael Schaefer, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Jeanette Schachtner, DCA, Office of the City Attorney, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-App ellee.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
J. Michael Schaefer appeals pro se from the district court's order denying reconsideration of its summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated his civil rights by issuing him a $38 parking ticket. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
We lack jurisdiction to address Schaefer's contentions regarding the merits of the district court's original entry of judgment because he failed to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of entry of final judgment and failed to file a timely post-judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R.App. P. 4; Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 254 (9th Cir.1995) ("an appeal of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings up for review only the denial of the motion, unless it is filed within ten days of the entry of judgment"). Accordingly, by order dated August 18, 2005, this court limited the scope of Schaefer's appeal to the denial of his motion for relief from the district court's judgment.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Schaefer's motion to reconsider because he failed to demonstrate any potential ground for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). See ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1263.
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.