Deidra Lintz v. John Potter ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEIDRA A. LINTZ, No. 13-17315
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01907-GEB-
KJN
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN,* Postmaster MEMORANDUM**
General of the United States; UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Deidra A. Lintz appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
*
Megan J. Brennan has been substituted for her predecessor, John E.
Potter, as Postmaster General, under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lintz’s post-judgment motions in her employment discrimination action. 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), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lintz’s motions for
reconsideration because Lintz failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See
Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077-80 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth
standard of review and factors warranting reconsideration under Rule 60(a)); Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
We do not consider Lintz’s contentions regarding the merits of the district
court’s original entry of summary judgment, or other prior rulings, because Lintz
failed timely to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (notice of
appeal must be filed within 60 days of judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv),
(vi) (required timing for post-judgment tolling motions); Swimmer v. IRS, 811 F.2d
1343, 1344-45 (9th Cir. 1987) (second motion for reconsideration does not toll
time to appeal underlying judgment), abrogated on other grounds by Briones v.
Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997); Fiester v. Turner, 783 F.2d
1474, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (“An untimely motion for reconsideration does not
2 13-17315
suspend the time to appeal from the judgment.”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Lintz’s contentions that her “Rule 52
motion” was improperly docketed as a declaration, and that the district court erred
in denying her motions without a hearing.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-17315