MICHAEL STORMAN V. USDHHS, No. 18-15337 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 21 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL D. STORMAN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-15337 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00976-MCE-AC v. MEMORANDUM* OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, United States, DHHS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Michael D. Storman appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, * 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). 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Storman’s motion for relief from judgment because Storman failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60). We lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal because the record reflects that Storman’s action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. See Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1507 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A voluntary dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not a final judgment from which the plaintiff may appeal.”); WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (issue of jurisdiction must be raised sua sponte). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, see Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), or documents not filed with the district court, see United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). Storman’s motion to expedite the case (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 18-15337

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.