*1 Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. *2 Roderic Malcolm Schmidt appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his diversity action following the dismissal of his claims pursuant to a settlement agreement. 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 by denying plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case because plaintiff failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (listing grounds warranting relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying plaintiff’s renewed motion to reopen the case because plaintiff’s amended notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Whitaker v. Garcetti , 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-17653

[*] 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).