Kevin MacGregor v. Martin ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN ANTHONY MacGREGOR, No. 16-16625
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:13-cv-02309-RMW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARTIN, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Kevin Anthony MacGregor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion an order setting aside entry of
*
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).
default. United States v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615
F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding good cause for
setting aside entry of default against defendant Dr. Martin. See id. at 1091(requirements for setting aside entry of default); Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d
499, 504 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court’s discretion is “especially broad” when
setting aside entry of default).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying MacGregor’s
motion for reconsideration of the court’s order setting aside entry of default
because MacGregor failed to establish any grounds for relief. See Pyramid Lake
Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A] trial
court has discretion to reconsider its prior, non-final decisions.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, including the propriety of the district court’s dismissal of
MacGregor’s action, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 16-16625
MacGregor’s requests for judicial notice and “emergency motion” (Docket
Entry Nos. 17, 18 and 19) are denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-16625