Robert Smith v. City of Payson
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Robert Smith appeals from the district court’s summary judgment to the appel-lees, individual police officers and the City of Payson, on Smith’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Arizona law. Smith also appeals from the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a summary judgment and summary judgment based on qualified immunity de novo. Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir.2007). We review a district court’s decision on a Rule 60 motion for abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.
I. Timeliness of Notice of Appeal
Smith’s post-judgment motions were timely under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, 60. Those motions tolled the time to file a Notice of Appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(v)-(vi). Smith filed his Notice of Appeal within 30 days of the district court’s denial of his post-judgment motions, which was a final order. Therefore, the Notice of Appeal was timely filed, and we have jurisdiction over this appeal.