Home/Ninth Circuit/Rollington Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medic

Rollington Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medic

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 20, 2021
Docket20-17451
StatusUnpublished

This text of Rollington Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medic (Rollington Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medic) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rollington Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medic, (9th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED OCT 20 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROLLINGTON FERGUSON, MD, No. 20-17451

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-05262-YGR

v. MEMORANDUM* CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Rollington Ferguson, MD, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action seeking judicial review of a decision issued by the

Departmental Appeals Board of the United States Department of Health and

Human Services. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

* 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). novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of the

applicable statute of limitations. Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 241

F.3d 1131, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ferguson’s action because Ferguson

failed to file his action within the 60-day statute of limitations period and did not

present any basis for equitable tolling. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (requiring

commencement of civil action within 60 days of the Commissioner’s decision);

Driver v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 509, 510 (9th Cir. 1985) (explaining that 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g) provides for judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary of Health

and Human Services); see also Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)

(requirements of equitable tolling).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ferguson’s request

for judicial notice because Ferguson filed it without leave of court as required

under Local Rule 7-3(d). See N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-3(d) (providing that “[o]nce a

reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior

Court approval”); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting

forth standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ferguson’s motion

to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)

because Ferguson failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

2 20-17451 Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)

(setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)).

AFFIRMED.

3 20-17451

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

Related

Pace v. DiGuglielmo
544 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Allene L. DRIVER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant/Appellee
779 F.2d 509 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)
School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Jeanette Daviton Candi Daviton-Sciandra v. Columbia/hca Healthcare Corporation, Dba San Leandro Hospital
241 F.3d 1131 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
Bias v. Moynihan
508 F.3d 1212 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rollington Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medic, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rollington-ferguson-v-centers-for-medicare-and-medic-ca9-2021.