22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T466,MEMORANDUM Robert J. Jaffe appeals pro se from the district court’s order rejecting Jaffe’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision regarding the management of its case. Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Jaffe’s Rule 60(b) motion. The rejection was consistent with this court’s mandate upon summarily affirming the district court’s order dismissing Jaffe’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Palomo v. Baba, 497 F.2d 959, 960 (9th Cir.1974) (per curiam) (recognizing that any orders by a district court following issuance of the mandate must be consistent “as to all matters encompassed by the mandate”). We decline to address Jaffe’s contentions regarding the underlying dismissal of his case. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T498,

MEMORANDUM

Robert J. Jaffe appeals pro se from the district court’s order rejecting Jaffe’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision regarding the management of its case. Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Jaffe’s Rule 60(b) motion. The rejection was consistent with this court’s mandate upon summarily affirming the district court’s order dismissing Jaffe’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Palomo v. Baba, 497 F.2d 959, 960 (9th Cir.1974) (per curiam) (recognizing that any orders by a district court following issuance of the mandate must be consistent “as to all matters encompassed by the mandate”).

We decline to address Jaffe’s contentions regarding the underlying dismissal of his case.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.