David Worth O’beirn v. Department of Veterans Affairs

09-35014Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 30, 2010

Full text

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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID WORTH O’BEIRN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-35014
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00805-RAJ
MEMORANDUM *
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.
FILED
MAR 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

tk/Research 09-35014 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.