David O'Beirn v. Department of Veterans Affairs

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID WORTH O’BEIRN, No. 09-35014
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00805-RAJ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
*
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, and therefore denies O’Beirn’s request for oral argument.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
tk/Research
David Worth O’Beirn appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for relief from judgment in his Federal Tort Claims Act action. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying O’Beirn’s Rule
60(b) motion because he did not demonstrate any ground for relief from judgment
or for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see also 38 U.S.C. § 511(a)
(providing that decisions related to the provision of a veteran’s benefits “may not
be reviewed by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or
otherwise.”); Hicks v. Small, 69 F.3d 967, 969 (9th Cir. 1995).
To the extent that O’Beirn challenges the underlying judgment, we lack
appellate jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2).
We do not consider O’Beirn’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007).
O’Beirn’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
O’Beirn’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
tk/Research 2 09-35014