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:T45c,MEMORANDUM Roderic Malcolm Schmidt appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his diversity action following the dismissal of his claims pursuant to a settlement agreement. 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 plaintiffs motion to reopen the case because plaintiff failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (listing grounds warranting relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)). We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying plaintiffs renewed motion to reopen the case because plaintiffs amended notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T493,

MEMORANDUM

Roderic Malcolm Schmidt appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his diversity action following the dismissal of his claims pursuant to a settlement agreement. 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 plaintiffs motion to reopen the case because plaintiff failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (listing grounds warranting relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying plaintiffs renewed motion to reopen the case because plaintiffs amended notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.