Case Name: Otto RANDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-23
Citations: 15 F. App'x 473
Docket Number: No. 00-56441; D.C. No. CV-99-07992-CBM
Parties: Otto RANDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 15
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
Otto RANDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-56441.
D.C. No. CV-99-07992-CBM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2001 .
Decided July 23, 2001.
Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Otto Randle appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and on summary judgment, his tax refund suit brought against the United States.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the district court's dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Garvey v. Roberts, 203 F.3d 580, 587 (9th Cir.2000) and on summary judgment, Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.
The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Randle's causes of action to recover income tax refunds for the years 1979, 1983, and 1985 because Randle did not make a claim for a tax refund for these years. See Boyd v. United States, 762 F.2d 1369, 1371 (9th Cir.1985).
Randle's remaining contentions lack merit.
Appellee's motion to strike portions of Randle's excerpt of record on appeal is granted. See United States v. Walker, 601 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.1979).
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.