BAAH v. AT INC (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Alex Baah appeals pro se from the district court's April 27, 2020 post-judgment order denying his motion for relief from judgment in his employment action. 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, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because Baah failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b)-(d); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).

We do not consider the district court's post-judgment orders (1) denying Baah's motion for disqualification and (2) denying reconsideration of the order denying disqualification, because the notice of appeal is untimely as to those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of judgment or order appealed from).

We do not consider Baah's contentions concerning his prior appeals, Nos. 16-56793 and 18-56358.

AFFIRMED.