Bennett v. Overseas Military Sales Group/Company/Organization

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN ROSS BENNETT, No. 12-35246
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06129-AA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
OVERSEAS MILITARY SALES
GROUP/COMPANY/ORGANIZATION,
OMSG, OMSC, OMSO,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013 **
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Stephen Ross Bennett appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
his motions for reconsideration of the district court’s judgment dismissing
Bennett’s diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah Cnty., 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 Bennett’s motions
for reconsideration because Bennett failed to establish grounds for relief under
either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See id. at 1263 (discussing
circumstances warranting reconsideration or relief from judgment under Rule 59(e)
and 60(b)). Because Bennett did not timely appeal from the district court’s
judgment, the merits of the underlying judgment are not before the court. See
Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1400 (9th Cir. 1991).
We deny Bennett’s motion for leave to enter new evidence, attached to the
end of his opening brief, and his motion for summary affirmance, filed on
August 13, 2012.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-35246