William Whitsitt v. Pamela Ramball
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
William J. Whitsitt appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from final judgment in his employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Whitsitt’s motion for relief from judgment because Whitsitt failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Fed, R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
We lack jurisdiction to review Whitsitt’s challenges to the district court’s prior orders because Whitsitt did not file a timely notice of appeal or a timely post-judgment tolling motion after the district court entered judgment on March 12, 2013. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F,.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).