Michael D. Storman v. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, United States, DHHS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL D. STORMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, United
States, DHHS,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-15337
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00976-MCE-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Michael D. Storman appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
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,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15337
1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Storman’s motion
for relief from judgment because Storman failed to demonstrate any basis for such
relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60).
We lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal because the record reflects that
Storman’s action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. See Concha v.
London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1507 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A voluntary dismissal without
prejudice is ordinarily not a final judgment from which the plaintiff may appeal.”);
WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (issue
of jurisdiction must be raised sua sponte).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, see Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009),
or documents not filed with the district court, see United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d
870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Storman’s motion to expedite the case (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --