Alex Baah v. at&tinc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEX BAAH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AT&T INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55515
D.C. No. 8:15-cv-02008-JLS-JCG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
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,
* 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).
FILED
JUN 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-55515
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.

-- 2 of 2 --