FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES E. YEAGER, No. 10-15467
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-
EFB
v.
SUSAN YEAGER and YEAGER, INC., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SCOTT ROBERTSON; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 10, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: GOODWIN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and O’GRADY, District Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Liam O’Grady, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria, sitting by designation.
Brigadier General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to Susan Yeager and Yeager, Inc. Gen. Yeager alleges
that Susan and Yeager, Inc. violated the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. Because Gen. Yeager’s appeal was not
timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. We therefore dismiss Gen.
Yeager’s appeal.
The notice of appeal from a judgment in a civil case “must be filed with the
district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.”
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). It is undisputed that Gen. Yeager filed his notice of
appeal in this case on February 26, 2010.
The district court entered final judgment as to all claims and all parties on
June 4, 2009. No other post-judgment proceeding restarted the time to appeal. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (listing certain post-judgment motions that restart the
time to appeal). Nor was the time to appeal tolled by the district court’s minor
corrections to its June 4, 2009 order and judgment. Because Gen. Yeager filed his
notice of appeal more than 30 days after June 4, 2009, the appeal is untimely and
we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007).
DISMISSED.
2