NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICIA HARDING MORRISON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-17050 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01207-RFB-PAL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Richard F. Boulware, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Patricia Harding Morrison, the surviving spouse of Tommy Morrison, 

appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her diversity action 

alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo. Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med. Inc., 343 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 3 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 16-17050

2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Morrison 

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether her claims were not 

time-barred. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190 (2015) (setting forth relevant two year 

and three year statutes of limitations); Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 

780 (9th Cir. 2002) (under Nevada law, “the statute of limitations begins to run 

when the wrong occurs and a party sustains injuries for which relief could be 

sought” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Schwartz v. 

Wasserburger, 30 P.3d 1114, 1117 (Nev. 2001) (“[A] personal representative 

inherits the benefits and burdens connected with the running of any applicable 

statute of limitations, measured from when the cause of action first accrued in 

favor of the decedent.”). Contrary to Morrison’s contentions, she is not entitled to 

tolling. See Orr, 285 F.3d at 780 (“[W]hen ‘uncontroverted evidence proves that 

the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the facts giving rise to the 

claim,’ such a determination can be made as a matter of law.” (quoting Siragusa v. 

Brown, 971 P.2d 801, 812 (Nev. 1998))). 

Morrison forfeited her opportunity to appeal the denial of her motion for 

leave to file a second amended complaint because she did not file objections to the 

magistrate judge’s order. See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 

1174 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[A] party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate 
 3 16-17050

judge’s nondispositive order with the district judge to whom the case is assigned 

forfeits its right to appellate review of that order.”).

We reject as meritless Morrison’s contentions that defendants’ summary 

judgment brief was untimely, and that defense counsel acted improperly. 

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). We do not 

consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States 

v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to 

the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.