
    Karl D. CHROMY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-35190.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 9, 2011.
    Karl D. Chromy, Portland, OR, pro se.
    Adrian Lee Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, Thomas M. Elsberry, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Karl D. Chromy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his action seeking review of an alleged final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and from the order addressing postjudgment motions. To the extent that we have jurisdiction, it is under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

We lack jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment because Chromy’s notice of appeal was filed more than sixty days after entry of judgment. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); United States ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare W., 602 F.3d 949, 953 (9th Cir.2010) (dismissing untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction). The post-judgment motions did not toll the time to appeal from the judgment. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (listing tolling motions); Munden v. Ultra-Alaska Assocs., 849 F.2d 383, 386 (9th Cir.1988) (explaining that we will not “strain to characterize artificially” a postjudgment motion “merely to keep the appeal alive”).

To the extent that Chromy challenges the district court’s order addressing his postjudgment motions, his contentions are unpersuasive.

Chromy’s remaining contentions are also unpersuasive.

DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     