Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0487-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerri BOON, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant — Appellee.
    No. 10-35812.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 19, 2012.
    Glenn Solomon, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    David W. Silke, Gordon & Rees, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jerri Boon appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) in her employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1191-92 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

Construing the dismissal as without prejudice, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Boon’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion because Boon failed to establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. See Allmerica Fin. Life Ins. & Annuity Co. v. Llewellyn, 139 F.3d 664, 666 (9th Cir.1998) (“[Neither ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney provide grounds for relief under rule 60(b)(1).” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

Boon’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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