Case ID: f-appx_15/html/0470-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ginn DOOSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-57146.
    D.C. No. CV-98-09507-CAS.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 9, 2001 .
    Decided July 23, 2001.
    Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant's request is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ginn Doose appeals pro se the district court’s order denying her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion in Doose’s quiet title action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion orders denying a Rule 60(b) motion, Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order denying the motion filed November 27, 2000.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Doose’s Rule 56(f) request for additional time to conduct discovery because Doose failed to “proffer sufficient facts to show that the evidence sought exists, and that it would prevent summary judgment.” Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 920 (9th Cir.1996) (citations omitted).

We do not reach the additional issues Doose raises for the first time in her reply brief. See Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir.1990).

Doose’s motions filed on June 14, 2001, and June 20, 2001, are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cír. R. 36-3.