Michael Diessner v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. , 384 F. App'x 609 ( 2010 )
Menu:
-
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL F. DIESSNER, an individual, No. 09-16497 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00095-JWS v. MEMORANDUM * MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 25, 2010 ** Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Michael F. Diessner appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action concerning foreclosure proceedings initiated by defendants. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Diessner’s request for oral argument is denied. jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Seinfeld v. Bartz,
322 F.3d 693, 696 (9th Cir. 2003), and we review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,
5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm the dismissal for the reasons stated in the district court’s order entered on May 18, 2009. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Diessner’s motion to alter or amend because Diessner failed to identify any basis to reconsider the judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
5 F.3d at 1262-63(setting forth requirements for reconsideration). AFFIRMED. 2 09-16497
Document Info
Docket Number: 09-16497
Citation Numbers: 384 F. App'x 609
Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher
Filed Date: 6/17/2010
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024