Greene v. Commissioner

36 F. App'x 608
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 12, 2002·No. No. 01-17348; D.C. No. CV-00-06760-DLB·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM****

Charles Anthony Greene appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motions for relief from the district court’s judgment remanding his action to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) to hear testimony from a vocational expert. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.

[609] We lack jurisdiction to address Greene’s contentions regarding the merits of the district court’s original entry of judgment because he failed to file a notice of appeal within 60 days of entry of final judgment and failed to file a timely post-judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R.App. P. 4. Accordingly, by order dated December 18, 2001, this court limited the scope of Greene’s appeal to the denial of his motions for relief from the district court’s judgment.

Because Greene failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly-discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from judgment, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motions. See ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1262-63.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Greene v. Commissioner, 36 F. App'x 608 (9th Cir. 2002).

36 F. App'x 608 (Greene v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Greene v. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security
537 U.S. 980 (Supreme Court, 2002)