Case Name: Linda L. FOGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON; et al., Defendants- Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-17
Citations: 46 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 01-36068; D.C. No. CV-00-01991-JCC
Parties: Linda L. FOGH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON; et al., Defendants— Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 46
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
Linda L. FOGH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON; et al., Defendants— Appellees.
No. 01-36068.
D.C. No. CV-00-01991-JCC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 9, 2002.
Decided Sept. 17, 2002.
Before HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Fogh's motion for oral argument.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Linda L. Fogh, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the district court's orders denying her motions to vacate the bankruptcy court's dismissal of her amended complaint, and denying reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Mitchell v. Burt Vetterlein & Bushnell PC (In re Stein), 197 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir.1999); Shalit v. Coppe, 182 F.3d 1124, 1126-27 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.
Because the district court's decisions did not rest upon an erroneous view of the law, we find no error. See In re Stein, 197 F.3d at 424.
We deny the request for judicial notice contained in Fogh's August 6, 2002 supplemental statement.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi cation and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.