Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0905-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Geoffrey Robert LAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC; et al. Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-35345
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    August 04, 2016
    Geoffrey Robert Lawson, AHCC—Air-way Heights Corrections Center, Airway Heights, WA, Pro Se.
    Nicolas A. Daluiso, Robinson Tait, P.S., Seattle, WA, Emilie K. Edling, Houser & Allison, APC, Portland, OR, Robert W. Norman, Jr., Houser & Allison, APC, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC.
    Emilie K. Edling, Houser & Allison, APC, Portland,' OR, Robert W. Norman, Jr., Houser & Allison, APC, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Ocwen FSB, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Capital I Inc Trust 2001-NC3, U.S. Bank.
    Robert W. Norman, Jr., Houser & Allison, APC, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees Assignees, Affiliates and Representatives, et al.
    Christine M. Tobin-Presser, Bankruptcy Counsel, Bush Kornfeld LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees Regional Trustee Services Corporation.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Geoffrey Robert Lawson, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions in his action alleging wrongful foreclosure and other federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lawson’s Rule 60(b) motions because Lawson failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See id. at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394-95, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993); Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381-82 (9th Cir. 1997).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, 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).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.