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    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 17 2010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Precedential Status: Non-Precedential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