Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0397-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Guillermo VERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Connie GIPSON, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-16420
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed June 2, 2017
    Guillermo Vera, Pro Se
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guillermo Vera, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. 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), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vera’s motion because Vera did not identify any grounds for relief from the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth grounds for relief).

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).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This’ disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.