Albert O. O'ROuRke v. Ernst & Young

Related Cases

In Re Dsl, Inc., Debtor. Dsl, Inc., Debtor-Appellant v. John M. England, Anthony G. Sousa, Trustees-Appellees
Christina Jay Acker Pamela Newman v. Judy Frigo, Deputy Warden, in Her Individual and Official Capacities Elijio Lopez, Internal Investigations, Individual and Official Capacities Harry Sombrero, Investigator, Individual and Official Capacities Cso Bridgewater, Individual and Official Capacities Sgt Hooten, Individual and Official Capacity Lt. Whitman, in Individual and Official Capacities Frank Nitterhauser, Cso, Individual and Official Capacities Samuel Lewis, Director Adoc, Individual and Official Capacities Barbara Daniels, Cps, Individual and Official Capacities Dale Copeland, Warden, Individual and Official Capacities Jerry Eitniear, Cpo, Individual and Official Capacities Terry Klukey, Recreational Supervisor, Individual and Official Capacities John Hayes, Administrative Assistant, Individual and Official Capacities Thomas McDonald Legal Analyst, Individual and Official Capacities Christine Derrington Mould, Inmate 84630, Individual and Official Capacities Anna Reyes, Inmate, Individual and Official Capacities Judy Richwine, Internal Investigations, Individual and Official Capacities
John C. O'Brien v. California State University, Fresno
I. Preston Meeks v. Prn, Inc., a Florida Corporation Health Care Staffing, Inc., a Florida Corporation Prn Franchise Systems, Inc., a Florida Corporation Willard L. Wendt, and Nurses Prn of Denver, Inc., a Florida Corporation Dwight R. Brewer, Individually and Dba Prn Health Care Staffing
Michael Ongaro, and Sally Ongaro, Husband and Wife v. R.E.B.L. Development, Inc., a Washington Corporation, Villa Park Limited, a Sole Proprietorship v. Villa Park Limited, an Australian Corporation Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant v. United States of America Third-Party-Defendant-Appellee

108 F.3d 1386

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Albert O. O'ROURKE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ERNST & YOUNG, et al. Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-55871.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 1997.*
Decided March 14, 1997.

Before: SNEED, LEAVY and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Albert O'Rourke appeals pro se the district court's denial of O'Rourke's Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal of his action against 32 defendants, alleging a number of claims including a conspiracy to remove O'Rourke from the practice of law. We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's Order filed on May 9, 1996.1

3

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

1

We reject O'Rourke's contention that the district court erred by ruling on the 60(b) motion without holding an evidentiary hearing or oral argument. See Spradlin v. Lear Siegler Management Serv. Co., 926 F.2d 865 (9th Cir.1991)