Elmer R. Seevers v. United States of America;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELMER R. SEEVERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56680
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00481-J-BLM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Napoleon A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Elmer R. Seevers appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to reconsider the dismissal of his action alleging constitutional violations
arising from injuries that he suffered while employed by the Department of the
Navy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
FILED
OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-56680 2
discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Seevers’s motion
for reconsideration because Seevers failed to establish any basis for
reconsideration. See id. at 1263 (Rule 60(b) permits reconsideration only upon a
showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or
(6) extraordinary circumstances that would justify relief).
Seevers’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --