
    William J. WHITSITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pamela RAMBALL, Area Director Manpower Group, Inc.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-15462
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    Filed September 20, 2016
    William J. Whitsitt, Manteca, CA, Pro Se.
    Timothy L. Johnson, Spencer C. Skeen, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., San Diego, CA.
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William J. Whitsitt appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from final judgment in his employment action alleging federal and state law claims. 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 Whitsitt’s motion for relief from judgment because Whitsitt failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Fed, R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

We lack jurisdiction to review Whitsitt’s challenges to the district court’s prior orders because Whitsitt did not file a timely notice of appeal or a timely post-judgment tolling motion after the district court entered judgment on March 12, 2013. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F,.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).

Contrary to Whitsitt’s contention that he was labeled a vexatious litigant, the record does not indicate that a vexatious litigant order has been entered against him.

We reject as without merit Whitsitt’s contentions that the district court was biased against him.

Whitsitt’s pending requests and motions, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     