Tullis v. Lee, Smart, Cook, Martin & Patterson PS Inc.
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Clinton M. and Margaret L. Tullís appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. See Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995).
Insofar as the Tullís’ contend that the district court erred by failing to certify their action as a class action or by dismissing federal environmental and civil rights claims against these defendants, we reject these contentions as meritless.
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Tullís’ motion for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Clinton M. TULLIS Margaret L. Tullis v. LEE, SMART, COOK, MARTIN & PATTERSON PS INC. West and Collins PS Law Office Creighton Hutchins Jane Doe Hutchins, and the marital community comprised thereof Karen A. Kalzer John Doe Kalzer, and the marital community comprised thereof Rory W. Leid Jane Doe Leid, and the marital community comprised thereof Robert E. West Jane Doe West, and the marital community comprised thereof
- Status
- Published