Deborah Wynn v. Callan Appraisal Incorporated

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 2 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEBORAH JANE WYNN, pro se, No. 12-16192
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. Nos. 2:09-cv-01587-RCJ
2:10-cv-01897-RCJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CALLAN APPRAISAL
INCORPORATED; JOHN CALLAN,
Defendants - Appellees,
HSBC BANK USA, N.A.,
Consol. Plaintiff - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted January 21, 2015***
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Robert Clive Jones, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Deborah Jane Wynn appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
her motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the judgments
in two consolidated actions arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Casey
v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wynn’s Rule 60(b)
motions because Wynn failed to establish any ground for relief from judgment.
See Am. Ironworks & Erectors Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899
(9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b) and explaining
that a district court does not abuse its discretion by denying a Rule 60(b) motion
where movant merely reargues issues raised previously); see also Fantasyland
Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 996, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (relief
under Rule 60(b)(6) is available “only where extraordinary circumstances
prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous
judgment”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
We deny Wynn’s request for oral argument, filed on February 27, 2013, and
2 12-16192
her motion to supplement the record, filed on January 3, 2014, see Kirshner v.
Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-16192