NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Morris on , 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 u nder 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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 statute s of limitations) ; Orr v. Bank of Am

. , NT & SA , 285 F.3d 764, 780 (9 th Cir. 2002) (under Nevada law, “ the statut e of limitations begins to run when the wrong occurs and a party sustains injuries f or which relief could be sought ” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Schwartz v. Wasserburger , 30 P.3d 1114, 1117 (Nev. 2001) (“ [A] personal representative
in herits 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 contention s , 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 h er opportunity to appeal the denial of h er motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint because s he did not file objections t o 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 magistrate3 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 mer itless Morri son’s contention s that defendants’ summary judgment brief was u ntime ly , and that defen se counsel acted improperly. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegation s raise d for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3 d 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.