Anselmo A. Pedroza v. James E. Tilton

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANSELMO A. PEDROZA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES E. TILTON,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-55559
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-02169-BTM-
PCL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 9, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and BELL, District
Judge.**
Anselmo Pedroza appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6).
We affirm.
FILED
JAN 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Pedroza’s Rule
60(b)(6) motion. See G.C. & K.B. Investments, Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096,
1108 (9th Cir. 2003). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a) provides the
exclusive means for extending the time to file a notice of appeal in a civil case
where the party did not receive notice of the entry of judgment. In re Stein, 197
F.3d 421, 425 (9th Cir. 1999). A motion to reopen must be filed “within 180 days
after the judgment or order is entered. . . .” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B). This 180
period is the outer limit beyond which no relief can be granted, and a party who
fails to file a notice of appeal in this time “lose[s] the right to appeal.” Stein, 197
F.3d at 425. The district court entered judgment denying Pedroza’s habeas petition
on June 12, 2007. Pedroza did not file his motion to reopen until February 17,
2009, well beyond the 180 day period. Accordingly, the district court correctly
denied Pedroza’s motion for relief from judgment.
Pedroza argues that his objections to the magistrate's report and
recommendations served as a premature notice of appeal. He is in error. His
objections were just that—objections to the magistrate's report. Therefore, we
cannot construe them as a notice of appeal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --